翻译史考试试题学习资料

1. Explain the definition of translation and the concept of “formal correspondence” in the view of Catford.⑴Translation may be defined as follows: the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL).The use of the term “textual material” underlines the fact that in normal conditions it is not the entirety of a SL text which is translated, that is, replaced by TL equivalents. But at one or more levels of language there may be simple replacement, by non-equivalent TL material. Moreover, at one or more levels there may be no replacement at all, but simple transference of SL material into the TL text.The term “equivalent” is clearly a key term. The central problem of translation practice is that of finding TL translation equivalents. A central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalents.⑵A formal correspondent is any TL category (unit, class, structure, etc.) which may be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the “same” place in the economy of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL.Formal correspondence can be only approximate, and can only be established ultimately on the basis of textual equivalence at some point.3. What’s your understanding of “the nature of translation” in the light of Nida?According to Nida, the nature of translating is: Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.Explanation of the Nature of the Translation (pp12-14)1. Translating must aim primarily at “reproducing the message”.To do anything else isessentially false to one’s task as a translator.(aim)2. The translator must strive for equivalence rather than identity. In a sense this is just another way of emphasizing the reproduction of the message rather than the conservation of the form of the utterance. (equivalence)3. The best translation does not sound like a translation. It should studiously avoid “translationese”—formal fidelity, with resulting unfaithfulness to the content and the impact of the message.(natural)4. A conscientious translator will want the closest natural equivalent because of the cultural differences.5. Meaning must be given priority, for it is the content of the message which is of prime importance for translating, and to do anything else is essentially false to one’s task as a translator.6. Style is said secondary to content, but it is still important. One should not translate poetry as though it were prose, nor expository material as though it were straight narrative.5. Explain “semantic translation” and “communicative translation” proposed by Newmark.①Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original. Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original.②Generally, a semantic translation tends to be more complex, more awkward, moredetailed, more concentrated, and pursues the thought-processes rather than the intention of the transmitter. It tends to overtranslate, to be more specific than the original, to include more meanings in its search for one nuance of meaning. A communicative translation is likely to be smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conventional, conforming to a particular register of language, tending to undertranslate, i.e. to use more generic, hold-all terms in difficult passages.③A semantic translation is out of time and local space, where a communicative translation is ephemeral and rooted in its context. A semantic translation attempts to preserve it s author’s idiolect, his peculiar form of expression. It relates to “expressive” function of language, where communicative translation responds to the vocative function of language.④One basic difference between the two methods is that where there is a conflict, the communicative must emphasize the “force” rather than the content of the message, e.g.:Beware of the dog!1) 当心狗！2）“狗咬人” 或“狗很凶”Keep off the grass！1）勿踏草坪！2）不要在草坪上行走。

Wet paint！1）“当心油漆！”或“油漆未干！” 2）油漆刚刚喷上。

⑤However, in communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent-effect is secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is only valid method of translation.4. “Formal equivalence”, “dynamic equivalence”, and “functional equivalence” are thekey concepts in Nida’s theories of translation. How do you understand them?①Formal equivalence: a formal-equivalence translation is basically source-oriented; thatis, it is designed to reveal as much as possible of the form and content of the original message.In doing so, an F-E translation attempts to reproduce several formal elements, including: 1. grammatical units, 2. consistency in word usage, and 3. meanings in terms of the source context.The reproduction of grammatical units may consist in: a）translating nouns by nouns, verbs by verbs, etc.; b）keeping all phrases and sentences intact(i.e. not splitting up and readjusting the units); and c）preserving all formal indicators, e.g. marks of punctuation, paragraph breaks, and poetic indentation. In attempting to reproducing consistency in word usage, an F-E translation usually aims at so-called concordance of terminology; that is, it always renders a particular term in the source-language document by the corresponding term in the receptor document. In order to reproduce meanings in terms of the source context, an F-E translation normally attempts not to make adjustments in idioms, but rather to reproduce such expressions more or less literally, so that the reader may be able to perceive something of the way in which the original document employed local cultural elements to convey meanings.②Dynamic equivalence: in contrast, a translation which attempts to produce a dynamic rather than a formal equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent effect.In such a translation the focus of attention is directed toward the receptor response. O ne way of defining a D-E translation is to describe it as “the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message.” This type of definition contains three essential terms: 1) equivalent, which points toward the source-language message, 2) natural, which points toward the receptor language, and 3) closest, which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation.However, since a D-E translation is directly primarily toward equivalence of responserather than equivalence of form, it is important to define more fully the implications of the word “natural” as applied to such translation. Basically, the word “natural” is applicable to three areas of the communication process; for a natural rendering must fit 1) the receptor language and culture as a whole, 2) the context of the particular message, and 3) the receptor-language audience.③Functional equivalence: Basically, dynamic equivalence has been described in terms of functional equivalence. The translation process has been defined on the basis that the receptors of a translation should comprehend the translated text to such an extent that they can understand how the original receptors must have understood the original text. The expression “dynamic equivalence” has, however, led to some confusion, since the term “dynamic” has been understood merely in terms of something which has impact and appeal. Accordingly, to avoid misunderstanding the expression “functional equivalence” is employed, particularly since the twin bases for effective translation seem to be best represented in a sociosemiotic and sociolinguistic orientation, in which the focus is upon function.The translator must seek to employ a functionally equivalent set of forms which in so far as possible way will match the meaning of the original source-language text.6. Who is Cicero? Who is Schleiermacher? Who is Tytler? What are their views on translation respectively?⑴西塞罗（Cicero106—43B.C.）罗马演说家，哲学家，修辞学家，作家兼翻译家。