Lecture 5 Translation and Linguistics I.ppt

TranslationandLinguisticsI Lecture5 Pre linguisticperiodoftranslationLinguisticapproach Earlylinguisticapproaches IncorporatingPragmaticsandSemantics Criticallinguistics CulturalturnLinguisticRe turnSocialturnTechnologicalturn Theterm Linguistics hasbeenusedtoreferto a theoreticalmodelsthatrepresenttranslationand orinterpretingasa primarily linguisticprocessandarethereforeinformedmainlybylinguistictheory Catford1965 Nida1964 House1977 1981 HatimDavidson2002 b adiverserangeofstudiesthatapplyfindings conceptsandmethodsfromlinguisticsonanadhocbasistoexplainspecificaspectsofthephenomenonofTr and orinterpreting Baker2008 1 EquivalenceandEquivalenceEffectKeyConcepts FurtherattemptstodefinethenatureofequivalenceR JakobsonE NidaP NewmarkW KollerM Baker RomanJacobson 1959 2000 Am Structuralist Kindsoftranslation intralingual interlingual intersemioticLinguistictheoreticalbasis Saussureandstructurism Linguistic theoriesoftranslationLanguageUniversalsvs LinguisticRelativismScienceoftranslationEquivalenceSemanticandcommunicativetranslationKorrespondenzand quivalenzTranslation shifts Discourseandregisteranalysis Equivalenceindifferenceisthecardinalproblemoflanguageandthepivotalconcernoflinguistics Munday2001 37 Focusondifferencesinthestructureandterminologyoflanguagesratherthanonanyinabilityofonelanguagetorenderamessagethathasbeenwritteninanotherverballanguage Languagesdifferessentiallyinwhattheymustconveyandnotinwhattheymayconvey Jacobson1959 2000 116 Equivalenceatlevelofobligatorygrammarandlexicon forexample thelevelofgender house thelevelofaspect verbmorphology 了 thelevelofsemanticfields E NidaTowardaScienceofTranslating 1964a TheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation 1969 LinguisticmeaningReferentialordenotativemeaningEmotiveorconnotativemeaningHierarchicalstructuringComponentialanalysisSemanticstructureanalysisFormalanddynamicequivalenceApplicationstoBibletranslation 翻译的性质 Translatingconsistsinreproducinginthereceptorlanguagetheclosestnaturalequivalentofthesource languagemessage firstintermsofmeaningandsecondlyintermsofstyle Reproducingthemessage equivalenceratherthanidentity anaturalequivalent theclosestequivalent thestyle thepriorityofcontextualconsistencyoververbalconsistency thepriorityofdynamicequivalenceoverformalcorrespondence 翻译的功能 Reader centered socialinguisticsandcommunicativefunctionoflanguage表达功能 expressivefunction 认识功能 cognitivefunction 人际关系功能 interpersonalfunction 信息功能 informativefunction 祈使功能 imperativefunction 司事功能 performativefunction 表感功能 emotivefunction 美学功能 aestheticfunction ChomskyandTTFromNida Taber 1969 33 FromNida 1964 185 7 FromMunday 2001 50 DiscussionofNida P NewmarkApproachestoTranslation 1981ATextbookofTranslation 1988 Translationprocess TheimportanceoftheTTReaderSemantictranslationCommunicativetranslation Semantictranslationattemptstorender ascloselyasthesemanticandsyntacticstructuresofthesecondlanguageallow theexactcontextualmeaningoftheoriginal Communicativetranslationattemptstoproduceonitsreadersaneffectascloseaspossibletothatobtainedonthereadersoftheoriginal Newmark1981 39 Semantictranslation ispersonalandindividual followsthethoughtprocessesoftheauthor tendstoover translate pursuesnuancesofmeaning yetaimsatconcisioninordertoreproducepragmaticimpact Communicativetranslation ontheotherhand attemptstorendertheexactcontextualmeaningoftheoriginalinsuchawaythatbothcontentandlanguagearereadilyacceptableandcomprehensibletothereadership Newmark1988 46 7 Functionoftexts Informativetexts semanticmethodoftranslation Vocative non literary texts communicativetranslation Expressive literary texts semanticmethodoftranslation Newmark1981 44 DiscussionofNewmark InfluencedbyNida butreceivedfarlessdiscussionthanNida sformalanddynamicequivalence Criticizedforhisstrongprescriptivism ProvidedampleguideanceandadviceforthetraineeandpraticaltranslationHearguesthatthe centralproblemoftranslating hasalwaysbeenwhethertotranslateliterallyorfreely WernerKoller 1976 1989 FivedifferenttypesofEquivalence Koller1979a 186 91 Munday2001 47 DenotativeequivalenceConnotativeequivalenceText normativeequivalencePragmaticequivalenceFormalequivalence DiscussionofKoller Equivalencesneededtobehierarchicallyorderedaccordingtothecommunicativesituation Achecklistfortranslationallyrelevanttextanalysisundertheheadingsof languagefunctioncontentcharacteristicslanguage stylisticcharacteristicsformal aestheticcharacteristicspragmaticcharacteristics Howthisistobedone M BakerInOtherWords ACourseBookonTranslation 1992EquivalenceatwordlevelMorphology lexicalandsyntacticLexicalMeaningPropositionalv ExpressivemeaningPresupposedmeaningEvokedmeaningdialect geographical temporal socialRegister field tenor modeofdiscourseSemanticfieldsandlexicalsets EquivalenceabovewordlevelCollocationCollocationalrangeandmarkednessCollocationandregisterCollocationalmeaningIdiomsandFixedExpressions GrammaticalequivalenceGrammaticalvs LexicalcategoriesTheDiversityofGrammaticalCategories NumberGenderPersonTenseandAspectVoiceWordOrder TextualequivalenceThematicandInformationStructuresThemeandRhemeSentenceanalysis SOdOiCsCoCpAdjConjDisjInformationStructure GivenandNewWordOrderandCommunicativeFunction TextualequivalenceCohesionReferenceSubstitutionandEllipsisConjunctionLexicalCohesion PragmaticequivalenceCoherencePresuppositionImplicatureGrice smaximsofQuantityQualityRelevanceMannerPoliteness LaterDevelopmentsinEquivalence Akeyissueintranslationthroughoutthe1970sandbeyond Chesterman1989 Bassnett1991 Baker1992 Acentral ifcriticized concept Kenny 1997 77 summarizescriticismthathastargetedthe circularity ofthedefinitionsofequivalence equivalenceissupposedtodefinetranslation andtranslation inturn definesequivalence Scholarsworkinginnon linguisticstranslationstudieshavebeenespeciallycriticalofthenotionofequivalence Translationinvolvesfarmorethanreplacementoflexicalandgrammaticalitemsbetweenlanguages Oncethetranslatormovesawayfromcloselinguisticequivalence theproblemsofdeterminingtheexactnatureofthelevelofequivalenceaimedforbegintoemerge Bassnett1980 91 25 2 TheTranslationShiftsApproachSincethe1950s therehasbeenavarietyoflinguisticapproachestotheanalysisoftranslationthathaveproposeddetailedlistsortaxonomiesinanefforttocategorizethetranslationprocess Translationshifts smalllinguisticchangesoccuringintranslationofSTtoTT Threemodels Vinay Darbelnet 1958 classicaltaxonomyoflinguisticchangesintranslationCatford s 1965 termtranslation shift inhislinguisticchangesintranslationVanLeuven Zwart 1989 90 verydetailedmodel 8categoriesand37sub categories Vinay Darbelnet 1977 2000 Translation shifts Directtranslation BorrowingCalqueLiteraltranslationObliquetranslationTranspositionModulationEquivalenceAdaptationFunctionatthelevelofthelexicon syntaxandmessage DiscussionofVinay Darbelnet 1977 2000 J C CatfordALinguisticTheoryofTranslation 1965 Theterm shift itselfseemstooriginateinCatford 1965 TheFirthianandHallidayanlinguisticmodel whichanalyzeslanguageascommunication operatingfunctionallyincontextandonarangeofdifferentlevels eg phonology graphology grammar lexis andranks sentence clause group word morpheme etc WeaknessesofCatford sapproach Micro level focusonlinguisticsystem J Catford 1965 Macro level focusonST TTcomparison J House 1977 1981 1997 MicroLevelTranslationisanoperationperformedonlanguages aprocessofsubstitutingatextinonelanguageforatextinanother Catford1965 1 Translationmaybedefinedasfollows thereplacementoftextualmaterialinonelanguage SL byequivalenttextualmaterialinanotherlanguage TL Catford1965 20 ThetheoryoftranslationisconcernedwithacertaintypeofrelationbetweenlanguagesandisconsequentlyabranchofComparativeLinguistics Catford1965 20 Sincetranslationhastodowithlanguage theanalysisanddescriptionoftranslation processesmustmakeconsiderableuseofcategoriessetupforthedescriptionoflanguages Itmust inotherwords drawuponatheoryoflanguage agenerallinguistictheory Catford1965 vii TwoquestionsHowaretheunitsoflanguageorganised structured Whatarethelevelsatwhichwecandescribelanguage Note Emphasisonthepotentialoflanguage notitsactualuse Animportantdistinctionbetween Formalcorrespondence amoregeneralsystem basedconceptconceptbetweenapairoflanguages Textualequivalence aparticularST TTpairAformalcorrespondent isanyTLcategory unit class whichcanbesaidtooccupy asnearlyaspossible the same placeinthe economy oftheTLasthegivenSLcategoryoccupiesintheSL AtextualequivalentisanyTLtextorportionoftextwhichisobservedonaparticularoccasion tobetheequivalentofagivenSLtextorportionoftext Catford1965 27 TranslationShifts departurefromformalcorrespondenceintheprocessofgoingfromtheSLtotheTL Twokindsofshift Levelshifts Categoryshifts Levelshifts wouldbesomethingwhichisexpressedbygrammarinonelanguageandlexisinanotherbyaspectinRussianbeingtranslatedbyalexicalverbinEnglish e g igrat toplay andsigrat tofinishplaying Categoryshiftsinclude structure shifts ashiftingrammaticalstructure e g ASPOstructuremaybetranslatedasaPSOstructure class shifts onepartofspeechtoanother e g anadjectivemaybetranslatedbyanounorverb unit shifts involvechangesinrank e g awordmaybetranslatedbyamorphemeoragroupbyaclause etc intra systemshiftsinvolveshiftswhichoccurinternally withinasystem whenSLandTLpossesssystemswhichapproximatelycorrespondformallyastotheirconstitution butwhentranslationinvolvesselectionofanon correspondingtermintheTLsystem ExamplesgivenbetweenFrenchandEnglisharenumberandarticlesystems where althoughsimilarsystemsoperateinthetwolanguages theydonotalwayscorrespond Heisateacher Ilestprofesseur withtheindefinitearticlemissing eventhoughitexistsinthesystemofFrencharticles DiscussionofCatfordAnimportantattempttotranslationadvancesinlinguisticsinasystematicfashion Thiskindofscientific likestatementofprobability whichcharacterizesCatford swholeapproachandwaslinkedtothegrowinginterestinmachinetranslationatthetime Itsstaticcomparativelinguisticapproach Delisle1982 Examples idealizedexamples Le inventedandnottakenfromactualtranslations anddecontextualized Heneverlooksatwholetexts norevenabovethelevelofthesentence Munday2001 62 卡特福德在 语言学翻译理论 一书中 提出了许多新的观点 不少是中国传统的翻译理论中所从来没有涉及到的 卡特福德确实如包振南先生当年所言 开创了翻译理论研究的一条新的途径 令人遗憾的是 卡特福德的理论没有引起国内学界足够的重视 卡特福德与奈达理论在中国的截然不同的遭遇值得人们深思 笔者觉得我们在引进国外翻译理论的时候 应该拓宽视野 既要引进与我们传统观点相近的理论 更要注意引进那些与我们的观点不太一样的理论 要有海纳百川的胸襟 不能故步自封 也不该惟我独尊 只有这样 才能促进我们的翻译理论不断地向前发展 林克难 Levels Catforddistinguishesthefollowinglevelsoflanguage Externallevels a thelevelofmedium substance phonicforspokenmediumandgraphicforwrittenmedium b situation Bothoftheseareextralinguistic Internallevelsoflanguage a medium form phonologyandgraphology arrivedatbyaprocessofabstractionfromphonicandgraphicsubstance b formallevels abstractedatahigherlevel grammarandlexis Therelationshipbetween theunitsof grammar lexisandsituation substance isthatofcontextualmeaning orcontext Distinctionbetweentotaltranslationandrestrictedtranslation TotalTranslation Catford p 22 usesthetermtotaltranslationtorefertowhatisgenerallymeantbytranslation i e thesituationinwhichallthelinguisticlevelsofthesourcetext phonology graphology grammarandlexis arereplacedbytargetlanguagematerial Equivalenceinthistypeoftranslationisnormallyonlyachievedatthelevelofgrammarandlexis andCatfordthereforedefinestotaltranslationasthe replacementofSLgrammarandlexisbyequivalentTLgrammarandlexiswithconsequentialreplacementofSLphonology graphologyby non equivalent TLphonology graphology RestrictedTranslation atonelevelonly Twomaintypes phonologicalandgraphological Restrictedtranslationatthegrammaticallevelorlexicallevelonlyis difficultifnotimpossible becauseoftheinterdependenceofgrammarandlexis Buthedoesgiveexamplesofallfourtypes GrammaticalTranslat