翻译的语言学方法

ContemporaryWestern

TranslationTheories

(1960s-Present)Contents1.Linguistic/ScientificApproachestoTranslation/TheScienceofTranslation语言学派/科学派翻译理论/翻译科学派2.FunctionalistApproachestoTranslation

功能学派翻译理论3.DescriptiveApproachestoTranslation

描写学派翻译理论4.CulturalStudiesApproachestoTranslation

文化学派翻译理论5.PhilosophicalApproachestoTranslation

哲学派翻译理论6.CongnitiveApproachestoTranslation

认知学派翻译理论7.EmpiricalResearchinTranslationStudiesReference:马慧娟，苗菊(ed.)SelectedReadingsofContemporaryWesternTranslationTheories

（当代西方翻译理论选读)[C].Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress.LinguisticApproachestoTranslation

（语言学派）ReferenceNida,E.A.TowardAScienceofTranslating(《翻译科学探索》)[M].1964.Chapter6:“PrinciplesofCorrespondence”Newmark,P.ApproachestoTranslation(《翻译问题探讨》)[M].1981.Chapter3:“CommunicativeandSemanticTranslation”Neubert,A.&G.Shreve.TranslationasText[M].1992.

GeneralIntroductionTranslationwasnotinvestigatedscientificallyuntilthe1960sintheWesternhistoryoftranslationasagreatnumberofscholarsandtranslatorsbelievedthattranslationwasanartoraskill.Linguistic/Scientificapproachestotranslationlingusitically-orientedtranslationtheories

1960s:TheScienceofTranslation(翻译科学派).EugeneNida(Americanlinguistandtranslationtheorist):TowardaScienceofTranslating

(《翻译科学探索》1964).BasedonNoamChomsky’sgenerative-transformationalgrammar:SyntacticStructures

(1957),AspectsoftheTheoryofSyntax

(1965)：Basecomponent–adeepstructure–asurfacestructure.JohnCatford(Britishlinguistandtranslationtheorist):ALinguisticTheoryofTranslation

(《翻译的语言学理论》1965).BasedonM.A.K.Halliday(Britishlinguist):systemicfunctionalgrammar(系统功能语法).WolframWills

(Germanlinguistandtranslationtheorist):TheScienceofTranslation:ProblemsandMethods

(《翻译科学：问题与方法》1977，1982).InfluencedbyNida’stheory.Linguistically-orientedtranslationtheories:focuson“translationequivalence”(翻译对等):Examples:Nida’stranslationmodeliscloselyrelatedtodynamicequivalenceandformalequivalence.Catford’stranslationmodeldistinguishesbetweenformalcorrespondence(形式对应)

andtextualequivalence

(文本等值).Wills’stranslationmodel:text-pragmaticequivalence(文本语用等效).WernerKoller

(Germantranslationtheorist)’stranslationmodel:Kollerclassifiesequivalenceintodenotativeequivalence(外延/所指等值),connotativeequivalence(内涵对等),text-normativeequivalence(文本规范等值),pragmaticequivalence(语用对等).Currentcontroversiesonthetheoryof“translationequivalence”Criticisms:Snell-Hornby:“Equivalenceisunsuitableasabasicconceptintranslationtheory”becauseitis“impreciseandill-defined”(1988:22)Supports:PeterFawcett:translationequivalence“continuestobeusedintheeverydaylanguageoftranslationbecausetheyrepresenttranslationreality”(2007:62)RepresentativesEugeneNida:DynamicEquivalenceandFormalEquivalence(动态对等翻译理论).PeterNewmark(Britishtranslationtheorist):SemanticandCommunicativeTranslation(语义翻译与交际翻译理论).AlbrechtNeubert(Germantranslationtheorist):TranslationasText(语篇翻译理论).EugeneA.Nida(1914-)

(尤金·奈达)AdistinguishedAmericantranslationtheoristandlinguist.“Thepatriarch(元老)oftranslationstudyandafounderofthediscipline”.WorkingfortheAmericanBibleSociety(ABS)afterreceivinghisPhDinlinguisticsin1943,tocheckandevaluatethepublicationsofBibles.

Nida’sPublications:

LinguisticInterludes(《语言学对话录》)

(1944/1947);Morphology:TheDescriptiveAnalysisofWords(1949);MessageandMission:TheCommunicationoftheChristianFaith(1960);Customs,CultureandChristianity

(1963);TowardaScienceofTranslating(翻译科学探索)(1964);ReligionAcrossCultures

(1968);TheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation

(1969,withC.R.Taber);

LanguageStructureandTranslation:Essays

(1975);

FromOneLanguagetoAnother

(1986,withJandeWaard);TheGreek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestamentBasedonSemanticDomains

(1988,withLouw);Language,CultureandTranslating(1993).LanguageandCulture:ContextsinTranslating

(2001).Nida’sTheoryDynamicequivalencetranslationtheory:hismajorcontributiontotranslationstudies.Theoryofdynamicequivalence:1)proposedinTowardaScienceofTranslating

(《翻译科学探索》)(1964);2)Nida’sDefinitionofdynamicequivalencetranslation:“Intermsofthedegreetowhichthereceptorsofthemessageinthereceptorlanguagerespondtoitinsubstantiallythesamemannerasthereceptorsinthesourcelanguage.”

(Nida,TheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation,1969:24)3)“Dynamicequivalence”wasreplacedby“functionalequivalence”inFromOneLanguagetoAnother:

FunctionalEquivalenceinBibleTranslating(1986).Justtostresstheconceptoffunctionandtoavoidmisunderstandingsoftheterm.4)Functionalequivalenceisfurtherdividedintocategoriesontwolevels:theminimallevelandthemaximallevelinLanguage,CultureandTranslating

(1993).Theminimallevelofthefunctionalequivalence:“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletocomprehendittothepointthattheycanconceiveofhowtheoriginalreadersofthetextmusthaveunderstoodandappreciatedit.”Themaximallevelofthefunctionalequivalence:“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletounderstandandappreciateitinessentiallythesamemannerastheoriginalreadersdid.”(Nida,1993:118).Theminimallevelisrealisticwhereasthemaximallevelisideal.Nida:goodtranslationsalwaysliesomewherebetweenthetwolevels(Nida,1995:224)Functionalequivalenceisaflexibleconceptwithdifferentdegreesofadequacy.Thenatureofdynamicequivalence:“receptors’response”.Shiftfrom“theformofthemessage”to“theresponseofthereceptor”.Itseekstomakethesameimpactwithoutregardtotheformoftheoriginallanguage.Focusonfreetranslationanddomestication.Dynamicequivalence:“Thequalityofatranslationinwhichthemessageoftheoriginaltexthasbeensotransportedintothereceptorlanguagethattheresponseofthereceptorisessentiallylikethatoftheoriginalreceptors.”(Nida,TheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation,202).DynamicequivalencehasbeenwidelyadoptedbyBibletranslators.Forinstance,TheNewChineseversionoftheBible(today’sChineseVersion)andothernewtranslationsoftheBibleallfollowtheprincipleofdynamicequivalence.Nida’stranslationtheoryofdynamicequivalencehasbeenquestionedandchallengedsince1980s:Somescholarsexpresstheirdoubtsabouttheapplicationofdynamicequivalencetogeneraltranslationpractice,especiallyliterarytranslation.Gentzler:Nida’stheoryisonlyusefulfortranslationsofpropaganda,advertisementorcertainreligiousmaterials;butitcouldnotprovidethebasisforageneraltranslationtheory(1993:60)Nidamakesfulluseofthenewdevelopmentoflinguistics,

semantics,informationtheory,communicationtheoryandsociosemioticsinanattempttoexplorethevariouslinguisticandculturalfactorsinvolvedintranslation.NidasuggeststhatitismoreeffectivetotransferthemeaningfromtheSLtotheTLonthekernellevel(deepstructure),akeyconceptinChomsky’stheory.Nida’sTranslationTheoryofBack-transformation(逆转换理论)

为了阐释动态对等，奈达借鉴经典转换生成语法理论中的“核心句”(kernelsentence)和“转换”等概念，提出了著名的逆转换翻译理论。

这个曲折的过程包括四个阶段：分析、转换、重组和检验。图示如下：

具体地说，就是在对原文进行语法语义分析的基础上，将其从表层结构逆转换为深层结构，然后传译到译文深层结构，最后再从译文深层结构转换为译文表层结构。最后对译文进行比较和检验。著名的逆转换翻译模式—三段式转换，即：

a.追溯原文句子结构最简单、语义最清楚的核心句(kernelsentence)；

b.将核心句从原语中译出；

c.按照译出的核心句生成译语中的表层句子。PeterNewmark(1916-)

(彼特·纽马克)

/link?url=ViW_0ut02-nUD5RBff2AZ_YSv5eh4MrUHfW12CGamEUQ6M6OSGec4WPQ_Q_hOjBnF7jFHKfdWSLaw9a8TRJFLqAnaccomplishedBritish

translationtheoristandanexperiencedtranslator.Newmark’sPublications(ontranslation)ApproachestoTranslation《翻译问题探讨》(1981)ATextbookofTranslation

《翻译教程》(1988)AboutTranslation

《翻译论》(1991)MoreParagraphsonTranslation

《翻译短评》(1993).Newmark’sTranslationTheoryTwotypesoftranslation:SemanticTranslationCommunicativeTranslation.(Newmark,ApproachestoTranslation,1981)Semantictranslation:focusesonthesemanticcontentofthesourcetext;Communicativetranslation:focusesonthecomprehensionandresponseofreceptors.ThisdistinctionisinasensesimilartoNida’sdistinctionof“formalequivalenttranslation”and“dynamicequivalenttranslation”Threemaintypesoftexts:

Expressivetext(表达功能文本)(semantictranslation)Informativetext(信息功能文本)(communicativetranslation)Vocativetext

(呼唤功能文本)(communicativetranslation)(Newmark,A

TextbookofTranslation,1988)Newmarkadmitsthatfewtextsarepurelyexpressive,informativeorvocative(1988:47)ExpressiveTextsThecoreisthespeakerorauthorFocusisontheirexpressionofmeaningsandemotions;Thereceptors’responseisignoredTypicalexpressivetexts:－

seriousliteraryworks.e.g.lyrics,shortstories,novels,drama,etc.－authoritativespeeches.e.g.celebrityaddresses,legaldocuments,scientific,philosophicalandacademicworksbyauthoritativefigures,etc.,whichdemonstratethespeakers/authors’individuality.－biography,prose,privateletterTranslationofexpressivetextsobserve“authorfirst”principle,putfocusonoriginalauthorbefaithfultoboththecontentandlanguagestyleofthesourcetextThetranslatorhaslittlefreedomtomakeachangeormodificationtothesourcetext.InformativeTextsFocusisontheextra-linguisticcontext/factors,thefactsinvolved,etc.Importanceisattachedto“truthfulness”,Theauthor’sindividualityislargelydiminishedTypicalinformativetexts:－textsaboutencyclopedicknowledge,e.g.textbooks,technicalreports,newspaper/magazinearticles,academicpapers,memo,minutes(会议记录),etc.

Translationofinformativetextsobserve“truthfulnessfirst”principle,beorientedtothereceptors’accessibilityandacceptability,ThetranslatorhasgreaterfreedomtomakeachangeormodificationtothesourcetextifnecessaryVocativeTextsThecoreistheaddressee;Orientedtotheaddressees’actionorreactionaccordingtotheauthor’sintentionsTypicalvocativetexts:Practicalwritingssuchasinstructions,guidelines,propaganda,applications,popularwritingsforteaching,etc.TranslationofvocativetextsThetranslatorshouldtakeintoconsiderationthelinguisticandculturalbackgroundofSTandpragmaticeffectofTT.e.g.“驴打滚”

(蒸熟的江米裹上甜豆面粉)—aChinesedishTranslation:glutinousricerollswithsweetbeanflourIf“donkey”(驴)occurredintheEnglishversion,itwouldpuzzletheEnglishspeakers.Differentmethodsfordifferenttypesoftexts:

—semantictranslationforexpressivetexts;—communicativetranslationforinformativeandvocativetexts.Correlativeapproachtotranslation(翻译关联法):coexistenceofsemanticandcommunicativetranslation.

AlbertNeubertAprominentGermantranslationtheorist,aleadingfigureintranslationstudiesforover30years.

Anemeritus

professor

oftranslatologyat

LeipzigUniversityCo-founderoftheinfluentialGermanLeipzigSchoolofTranslationTheory

(来比锡学派),characterizedbyalinguistically-oriented,scientificapproach(text-linguisticapproach)totranslation.Thisschoolhadmadesignificantcontributionstotranslationstudies,andshedlightontheGermanfunctionalismaswell.CERNChairofTranslationatLeuvenUniversity.GuestprofessorshipsatSUNYBinghamtonUniversity(TheStateUniofNewYork)andKentStateUniversity.HehelpedtofoundtheInstituteforAppliedLinguisticsatKentStateUniversity,nowacenterforAmericantranslationstudies.Neubert

isinsightfulandfar-sighted.Hehelpedtoestablishthewidespreadmovementtointroduceformalandempiricalrigorintotranslationstudies.LeipzigUniversityLeipzigUniversityNeuberttakesatext-linguisticapproachtotranslation.Textlinguistics

isabranchof

linguistics

thatdealswith

texts

ascommunicationsystems/thestudyofhowtextsfunctioninhumaninteraction.Textlinguisticstakesintoaccounttheformofatext,butalsoitssetting,i.e.thewayinwhichitissituatedinaninteractional,communicativecontext.Boththeauthorofa(writtenorspoken)textaswellasitsaddressees

aretakenintoconsiderationintheirrespective(socialand/orinstitutional)rolesinthespecificcommunicativecontext.AccordingtoHalliday,textisasignrepresentationofasocio-culturaleventembeddedinacontextofsituation.Contextofsituationisthe

semio-socio-culturalenvironmentinwhichthetextunfolds.Textandcontextaresointimatelyrelatedthatneitherconceptcanbecomprehendedintheabsenceoftheother.Threevariablesofcontextofsituation/registerFieldofdiscourse(语场)–experientialmeaning

－“thefocusoftheactivityinwhichweareengaged”,bothintermsofthetopicandthesocialactivitytype;－includingacontinuumoftechnicality

(专门性/专业性),rangingfrom“technical,specialized”to“commonsense,everyday”.Withregardtofield,therelativedegreeoftechnicalityofatext

mayposetranslationdifficulties.Forinstance,InEnglish,differentwordsareusedtorefertodifferentkindsofbeer,dependingonhowstrongtheyare,theircolor,texture,taste,etc..e.g.,lager,ale,stoutorbitter.However,inCatalan(alocaldialectinSpain),forinstance,thereisonlyonewordforbeer(cervesa),andthesameistrueofSpanish(cerveza).Itisimpossible,therefore,tobeso‘technical’(i.e.precise)ineitheroftheselanguagesasonecanbeinEnglish.Whenfaced,inareallifesituation,withsuchwordsas“stout”or“bitter”,theSpanishorCatalantranslatorwillhavetosettleforthehypernym

(上义词)becausetherearesimplynolexicalizedhyponymsinhis/herlanguage(i.e.thesemanticfieldinquestionisnotsowelldevelopedintheselanguagesasitisinEnglish)or,alternatively,willhavetoresorttoperiphrasis(迂回说法)orexplanation.Tenorofdiscourse(语旨)

–interpersonalmeaning－themeaningthattherolesofandrelationshipsamongparticipantsgivetotheunderstandingofthetext;－“thesocialrolerelationshipsplayedbyinteractants”,whichcanbebrokendownintothreecontinua:power:equal/unequal;contact:frequent/occasional(degreeoffamiliarity);affectiveinvolvement:high/low.Withregardtotenor,twoaspectswillbehighlightedaspotentialsourcesoftranslationproblems:termsofaddress(includingpersonalpronouns)andmodality.Powerrelations,aswellas(differing)degreesoffamiliarityandaffection,areusuallyconveyedthroughpersonalpronounsandtermsofaddress(whichincludetitles,honorifics,termsofendearment,etc.).Inotherwords,alltheserelationsmaybeexpressedgrammaticallyorlexically.Whenexpressedgrammatically,notalllanguageshavethesameresourcesavailable;onthecontrary,thereisoftenlackoffitbetweengrammaticalsystemsacrosslanguages.Acaseinpointisthatofpersonalpronounsystems,especiallythoseconcerningtheso-calledT/Vdistinctionfor2ndpersonpronouns,(i.e.Vpron,indicatingsomedegreeofrespect,formality,distance;Tpron,indicatingtheoppositevalues:familiarity,casualness,intimacy).Thisdistinctionismade,forinstance,inFrench(tu/vous),German(du/Sie),Spanish(tú/usted),Catalan(tu/vostè),Chinese(您/你)andmanyotherlanguagesbutnotincontemporaryEnglish.Thislackoffitmaygiverisetoallkindsofproblemsintranslation.e.g.whentranslatingfromEnglishintooneofthoselanguageswiththeT/Vpronoundistinction,theprocessoftranslationproperhastobeprecededbydetailedanalysisofthetenorvariablesandassessmentofthedifferentsolutions.Choiceoftheappropriatesecond-personpronouninatargetlanguagewhichoffersmorethanonepossibilitywillonlybepossiblewhenalltheaspectsoftherelationship

(e.g.powerrelation,frequencyofcontact,degreeofaffection)inquestionhavebeentakenintoaccount.Modeofdiscourse(语式)

–logicalmeaning－themeaningthatthelanguage,writtenorspoken,givestotheunderstandingofthetext.－“therole

language

playsinaninteraction”,whichinvolvestwosimultaneouscontinua:Spatial/interpersonaldistancebetweentheparticipants,intermsofsuchvariablesasvisualand/orauralcontactandfeedbackpossibilities;Experientialdistance:distancebetweenlanguageandthesocialprocessoccurring,intermsofwhetherlanguageaccompaniesthesocialprocessorconstitutesitentirely.Thecombinationofthesetwocontinuawouldyieldatleastthefollowingvariablesinmode:+/–interactive,+/–face-to-face,+/–languageasaction,+/–spontaneous,+/–casual(bothinspokenandwrittenlanguage).Ingeneral,itisanapplicationof

discourseanalysis

atthemuchbroaderleveloftext,ratherthanjustasentenceorword.Propertiesoftext:

BeaugrandeandDressler(1981)defineatextasa“communicativeoccurrencewhichmeetssevenstandardsoftextuality(文本性)”:Cohesion(衔接性)Coherence(连贯性)Intentionality(意图性)Acceptability(可接受性)

Informativity(信息性)Situationality(情景性)

Intertextuality(互文性)withoutanyofwhichthetextwillnotbecommunicative.Non-communicativetextsaretreatedasnon-texts.(1)CohesionCohesion

concernsthewaysinwhichthecomponentsofthesurfacetextareconnectedwithinasequence.e.g.

SLOW

CARS

HELDUPSuchatextcanbeinterpretedinvariousways:Itmightbeconstruedasanoticeabout"slowcars"thatare"heldup',sothatconclusionscouldbedrawnabouttheneedtodrivefasttoavoidbeingheldup.However,itismorelikelytodividethetextinto"slow"and"carsheldup',sothatdriverswilldriveslowlytoavoidaccidentsortakealternativeroutestoavoidbeingcaughtintheslowtraffic.Ascienceoftextshouldexplainhow

ambiguities

suchasthisarepossible,aswellashowtheyareprecludedorresolvedwithoutmuchdifficulty.Forefficientcommunicationtotakeplacetheremustbeinteractionbetweencohesionandotherstandardsoftextualitybecausethesurfacetextaloneisnotdecisive.(2)CoherenceCoherence

concernsthewaysinwhichconceptsandrelations,whichunderliethesurfacetext,arelinked,relevantandused,toachieveefficientcommunication.Aconceptisacognitivecontentwhichcanberetrievedortriggeredwithahighdegreeof

consistency

inthemind;Relationsarethelinksbetweenconceptswithinatext.Surfacetextsmaynotalwaysexpressrelationsexplicitly,thereforepeoplesupplyasmanylinksasareneededtomakesenseoutofanyparticulartext.Intheexampleoftheroadsign"SLOWCARSHELDUP',"cars"isanobjectconceptand"heldup"an

actionconcept,andthe"cars"arelinkedto"heldup'.Therefore,"slow"ismorelikelytobeinterpretedasamotionthanasthespeedatwhichcarsaretravelling.(3)IntentionalityIntentionality

concernsthetextproducer'sattitudeandintentionsasthetextproducerusescohesionandcoherencetoattainagoalspecifiedinaplan.Withoutcohesionandcoherence,intendedgoalsmaynotbeachievedduetoabreakdownofcommunication.However,dependingontheconditionsandsituationsinwhichthetextisused,thegoalmaystillbeattainedevenwhencohesionandcoherencearenotupheld.“WantIcarryyouonmyback?”Eventhoughcohesionisnotmaintainedinthisexample,thetextproducerstillsucceedsinachievingthegoaloffindingoutifthetextreceiverwantedapiggyback.(4)AcceptabilityAcceptability

concernsthetextreceiver'sdesirethatthetextshouldconstituteusefulorrelevantdetailsorinformationsothatitisworthaccepting.Texttype,thedesirabilityofgoalsandthepoliticalandsocioculturalsetting,aswellascohesionandcoherenceareimportantininfluencingtheacceptabilityofatext.Textproducersoftenspeculateonthereceiver'sattitudeofacceptabilityandpresenttextsthatmaximizestheprobabilitythatthereceiverswillrespondasdesiredbytheproducers.(5)InformativityInformativity

concernstheextenttowhichthecontentsofatextarealreadyknownorexpectedascomparedtounknownorunexpected.Nomatterhowexpectedorpredictablethecontentmaybe,atextwillalwaysbeinformativeatleasttoacertaindegreeduetounforeseenvariability.Theprocessingofhighlyinformativetextdemandsgreatercognitiveabilitybutatthesametimeismoreinteresting.Thelevelofinformativityshouldnotexceedsuchapointthatthetextbecomestoocomplicatedandcommunicationisendangered.Conversely,thelevelofinformativityshouldalsonotbesolowthatitresultsinboredomandtherejectionofthetext.(6)SituationalitySituationality

concernsthefactorswhichmakeatextrelevanttoasituationofoccurrence.Thesituationinwhichatextispresentedinfluencesthecomprehensionofthetext.Theremaybedifferentinterpretationswiththeroadsign

SLOW

CARS

HELDUPHowever,themostlikelyinterpretationofthetextisobviousbecausethesituationinwhichthetextispresentedprovidesthecontextwhichinfluenceshowtextreceiversinterpretthetext.Thegroupofreceivers(motorists)whoarerequiredtoprovideaparticularactionwillfinditmorereasonabletoassumethat"slow"requiresthemtoslowdownratherthanreferringtothespeedofthecarsthatareahead.Pedestrianscantelleasilythatthetextisnotdirectedtowardsthembecausevaryingtheirspeedsisinconsequentialandirrelevanttothesituation.Inthisway,thesituationdecidesthesenseanduseofthetext.Situationalitycanaffectthemeansofcohesion;lesscohesivetextmaybemoredependentonthesituationthanmorecohesivetext.Iftheroadsignwas"Motoristsshouldreducetheirspeedandproceedslowlybecausethevehiclesaheadareheldupbyroadworks,thereforeproceedingattoohighaspeedmayresultinanaccident”,everypossibledoubtofthereceiverswouldberemoved.However,motoristsonlyhaveaveryshortamountoftimeandattentiontofocusonandreacttoroadsigns.Therefore,insuchacase,economicaluseoftextismuchmoreeffectiveandappropriatethanafullycohesivetext.(7)IntertextualityIntertextuality

concernsthefactorswhichmaketheutilizationofonetextdependentuponknowledgeofoneormorepreviouslyencounteredtext.Ifatextreceiverdoesnothavepriorknowledgeofarelevanttext,communicationmaybreakdownbecausetheunderstandingofthecurrenttextisobscured.Textssuchasparodies

(仿拟),rebuttals(反驳),forumsandclassesinschool,thetextproducerhastorefertopriortextswhilethetextreceiversshouldhaveknowledgeofthepriortextsforcommunicationtobeefficientorevenoccur.AlbrechtNeubertInthebookTranslationasText

(AlbrechtNeubert

&

GregoryShreve,1992),manyideasregardingtext-linguistic,sociolinguistic,andpsycholinguisticmodelsoftranslationarediscussed.AlbrechtNeubertText-linguisticmodeloftranslation:“top-down”textproductionfortranslation(倒置模式).Theessentialtranslationunitistheentiretext,fromwhichonecalculatesbackwardstoarriveattheglobalproposition,whichisthendividedintosmaller,single,transportablesemanticunits,whilemeaningisalsocarriedgloballyinthetext.Itisa“top-down”recreationofthetextthroughthepurposefulselectionoftargetlanguageresources.TranslationasText(Nuebert&Sherve,1992)Neubert

assumesatextualperspectiveontranslation,asthetextistheprimaryobjectofresearch,andisregardedashavingthepotentialtoactasaunifyingconceptinthedisciplineoftranslationstudy.Hecommentedthatthepreviouslinguisticapproachtreatstranslationasaspecifictypeoflanguageusewithoutconsideringtheexternalorextralinguisticfactors

suchascriticalnormsortheconstraintsofpractice.Text-linguisticapproachtotranslation:Whatistransferredintranslationisnotmeanings,butrather,thecommunicativevaluesofthesourcetext.Itistext-based,emphasizingthecommunicativecontextualizationofwordsandmeanings.Thetext-linguisticmodeloftranslationisadistinctapproachwiththetextualsystemsoftwocommunicatingcommunitiesastheframeofreference.IdeasinTranslationasTextWiththeadventoftext-linguistics,amorecomplexviewisbeingintroduced—thetext-linguisticperspective,whichhasbroughttotranslationstudiesare-interpretationofgrammaticalandlexicaldistinctionsaswellasanexplorationofcorrespondencesbeyondthesentencelevel.Disregardingtheroleofthetextwaslikefailingtoseethewoodforthetrees.Translatingthewordsandstructurescorrectlydoesnotguaranteeanadequatetranslation.“Translation,Text,TranslationStudies”

byAlbertNeubert(Selectedfrom

TranslationasText,Chapter1)TranslationandparadoxTranslationandtextModelsoftranslationThelinguisticmodelThetext-linguisticmodelTranslationandparadoxParadox

(p58-61)(onethingwithtwooppositefeatures)(1)Translabilityvs.untranslabilityNeubert:untranslabilityAsourcetextisembeddedinacomplexlinguistic,textual,andculturalc