口译理论概述 书评
(完整版)翻译理论书评(程思茜G13201039)
Afterthoughts upon Bassnett 《 Tra'ns s lation Studies》In this new-born while in-depth field of translation, a variety of monographs、text books abound in this blooming, glamorous garden, then I choose one glistening rose in full blossom ------- T ranslation Studies(the third edition) as my favorite book to undertake a report. The writer---Susan Bassnett is a well-known translation theorist winning her reputation all over the world and celebrated for her tremendous, fruitful translation monographs, translations and compilations. Her research range varies from comparative literature, translation studies, English literature, dramatic productions to the translation phenomena in postcolonial period. Besides, some of her seminal works contributed to the establishment and development of translation, like Constructing cultures: Essays on Literary Translation, Comparative Literature: A critical Introduction , blaze the trail for the cultural translation school. And this book makes a name for her proving to be one of her most influential works.This book consists of four main parts: “Preface”to the third edition, “Introduction ”, “Contents”and “Conclusion”. In the preface, Bassnett elaborated upon the cause, status quo and prospect of this discipline and also sketched the background knowledge. Then, in the introduction part, she pointed out the pivotal goal of this book, which is an attempt to outline the scope of that discipline, to give some indication of the kind of work that has been done so far and to suggest directions in which further research is needed. Most importantly, it is indeed a discipline in its own right: not merely a minor branch of other disciplines. She also holds that translation study is one kind of discipline deeply, firmly implanted in the practice. So the combination of theory and practice in this discipline is of great value and importance. After that, she used four research atmospheres to construct the range of this discipline: History of Translation, Translation in the TL culture, Translation and Linguistics, Translation and Poetics. The “contents”part comprises three chapters: central issues, history of translation, specific problems of literary translation. In the first chapter, it touches upon issues like Language and culture, Types of translation, Decoding and recoding, Problems of equivalence, Loss and gain, etc. Bassnett freed from the shackles of the old, clich d debates on someissues, provided her new in sight into theses issues. In the second chapter, Bassnett cherished the history as thread to give a comb of the different views in various periods of western culture, and pondered over the effects and change of functions of translation. It covered periods from “The Romans”to “The Renaissance”to “The seventeenth,eighteenthcenturies”until “The twentieth century”. In the last chapter, at the beginning, she compared the close relationship between theory and practice to that between driver and mechanic. And finally she suggestedthat, in terms of a careful analysis of cases and examples, translators would give rise to different specific issues after choosing disparate translation criteria. She introduced different translation criteria in the process of translating poetry, prose and dramatic texts, cited some examples from original works for our reference. In “conclusion”,she confessed that some other vast amount of material was left undiscussed, such as: machine translation, cinematic texts, oral translation or interpreting; these are like fly in the ointment. Above mentioned is the general outline of the whole book.Actually, this marks a significant milestone in the development and strengthening of this discipline. The biggest contribution is that it circumscribes the basic research domain of translation study as the separate,independent discipline. It also highlights that translation study should focus on the cultural level to have the whole meditation upon translation, which opens the door of “cultural turn ”.Secondly, this book puts forward some basic principles of cultural translation school. Before, the translation field was overwhelmed with the linguistic perspectives on translation, to name just a few, Nida's “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence”, Newmark's “semantic and communicative translation”,Toury'sdifferent kinds of norms. It'sfrom this book that the general structure and blueprint of cultural translation school has been gradually constructed. What's more, she even expounded on the basic notions of this school in the first edition of this book: A focus should be pinned on the historic, cultural background behind texts, what criteria decided translators'strategies in translation, and we should attempt at recognizing how the complicated process of controlling texts produced. Thirdly, there are some minor while still glittering lights cast upon readers from the book. Itgives us a comparatively systematic line of the translation history in western culture. Attention to “history”here means not merely the main translation principles, strategies in different periods, but also the cultural and historic elements of SL and TL texts. Besides, she might be courageous enough to challenge, or even topple down the core principles of “equivalence”, “fidelity ”, “transl a tbility ”in traditional translation views, and regarded the translation history, some other cultural views as being set in the equal place with linguistics. Maybe these radical and audacious views incurred criticism and doubts from other translators and theorists.Every leaf has two sides; this book is no exception. Since the publication, this book has been leveled criticism, suspicion from different voices. Generally, the structure of this book seems to be general and sweeping. It falls short of the specific, systematic research methods and doesn't provide us with some instrumental principles, methods, strategy easily to be practiced. So in some aspects, it doesn't delve into the broader and deeper part of some theories, just like a dragonfly skimming the water surface. In spite of her promotion of combining the theory with practice, in translating poetry and dramatic texts, it 's obvious there is a lack of relevant theories supporting the analysis of original works in detail. More specifically, I was skeptical about her defining of equivalence in this book: the first lays on an emphasis on the special problems of semantics and on the transfer of semantic transfer from SL to TL, the second explores the question of equivalence of literary texts. After contemplation, the doubts exist in whether it's scientific and overall. Besides literary texts, other types oftexts'problems of equivalence seem to be ignored. Her two lines can 't cover the core nature of equivalence, not to mention, the gamut of it. Then, the translation of dramatic texts attracted my interests, esp. the principleof“playability ”. It indeed makes huge progress in that it moves away from adhering to the original texts too closely to focusing on the performable aspects of texts. However, after considerate reading, problems loom large. There seems to lack the specific, working principles or methods. And in the practical translation of dramatic texts, even if there are setting criteria of “playability ”, they will vary accompanied by the change of different cultures, periods, text types. What's worse,“playability ”in translating dramatic textssometimes fall victim to other sides'full advantages.So in the directors, theatre managers'eyes, the SL texts were anything but sacred, and were reshaped according to very basic needs---the audience expectations, size of company, repertoire of performers, limitation of time and space, etc. So they reshapedthe text actually in order to satisfy their own benefits to maximum, and used the term as an excuse to exercise greater liberties with the text than convention allowed. Bassnett herself also realized the impossibility to exercise this “playability ”, as a result, after 1985, she gave up the “playability ”, then began to run counter to her former theories in a series of papers, namely: Ways through the Labyrinth: Strategies and Methods for Translating Theatre Texts; Translating for the theatre---Textual complexities; Translating for the theatre: The Case Against Performability. She once admitted that performability was nothing but a human illusion, finally vanishing into thin air in reality. She also considered other precious elements in the performance part, compensating for the loss in the TT, for example, encoded gestic moves, kinesic, paralinguistic signs, deictic units all play an indispensable role in the performance of dramatic texts. So the dramatic SL can be displayed vividly in fidelity by the use of these elements in the actors'part. Differences in register involving age, gender, social positions, consistency in monologue should take priority over an abstract, individualistic notion of performability. So all these encourage and force her to abandon“playability ”resolutely and determinedly.To sum up, this book, just like a beam of sunshine, illuminates the whole translation field; also like a glistening pearl, glitters incessantly to eternity. Despite its tiny weakness, its brilliant lights will never be overshadowed, so it continues to exert profound influence upon generations after generations who read it.。
当代国际口译研究视域下的巴黎释意学派口译理论
当代国际口译研究视域下的巴黎释意学派口译理论当代国际口译研究视域下的巴黎释意学派口译理论引言：巴黎释意学派是国际口译研究的重要学派之一，其理论框架和方法论的建立和发展对于当代国际口译研究具有重要的意义。
本文将以当代国际口译研究为视域，探讨巴黎释意学派的口译理论，并试图从中发现该学派对于口译教育和实践的启示。
一、巴黎释意学派的起源与发展巴黎释意学派的理论框架最早由法国翻译家让-皮埃尔·黑拉尔（Jean-Pierre Héricourt）于20世纪70年代提出。
他的研究围绕口译的本质、过程和技巧展开，提倡“释意”（interpretation）的概念来解释并指导口译实践。
二、巴黎释意学派的理论基石1. 释意理论：巴黎释意学派坚持认为，口译的目标在于将源语的意思传达给目标语受众。
在这个过程中，口译者必须理解并选择合适的解释，以确保最佳的传达效果。
2. 知识体系：巴黎释意学派认为，口译者必须具备广泛的知识背景，特别是在语言、文化、科技等领域具有深入的了解和熟悉。
这样的知识体系可以帮助口译者快速理解并准确表达源语信息。
3. 心理学因素：巴黎释意学派认为，口译者的心理状态对于口译质量有着重要的影响。
心理压力、自信心和专注力等因素都会对口译者的表达和理解能力产生积极或消极的影响。
三、巴黎释意学派在当代国际口译研究中的地位巴黎释意学派的理论在当代国际口译研究中占据重要地位。
一方面，该学派提出的“释意”概念为解释口译的本质和目标提供了新的视角。
另一方面，巴黎释意学派注重口译者的知识、素养和心理状态，这为口译教育和培训提供了新的思路和方法。
四、对当代国际口译教育与实践的启示1. 注意知识与技能的结合：巴黎释意学派强调，口译者需要掌握广泛的知识背景，但同时也需要具备相应的技能和实践经验。
在当前国际口译教育中，注重理论和实践的有机结合尤为重要。
2. 强调心理素质的培养：巴黎释意学派的理论表明，口译者的心理状态直接影响着他们的表达和理解能力。
浅析口译理论
浅析口译理论作者：白露露来源：《现代经济信息》 2017年第11期一、口译产生和发展口译是一门历史悠久的学科，像人类的历史一样，源远流长。
它比书面文字产生的还要早很久，也早于笔译，是最早期的翻译类型。
中国在夏商时期就有了需要口译人员的活动。
而在20 世纪初期，口译开启了职业化道路。
而口译职业化的开端，就是1919 年召开的巴黎和会。
由于会议使用的是英语和法语，于是就有了交替传译译员。
在1971 年，中国重新进入联合国，口译活动日益增多。
口译工作的快速发展，是在改革开放以后，当时大多数为交替传译。
到了20 世纪90 年代后期，随着对外往来的增多，中国举办各种大型国际会议，随之而不断增多的便是同声传译工作。
二、口译的特点1. 口译具有即席性口译的及习性也可以称在场性。
“是口译普遍具有的一个特征,它是由口语的即席性特点决定的。
”口译与口语有密不可分的联系，口语是基础，口译的即习性是由口语决定的。
这一特点要求译员在翻译的过程中要有集中的精力和敏捷的思维。
2. 口译具有准确性口译的最基本要求之一就是准确性。
在口译过程中，一个小失误就可能会造成大麻烦，因此，口译要准确，尤其是翻译人名、数字、专有名词等。
另外，准确性还要求译员口齿清晰、口头表达准确。
口语是译员工作的工具，语言表达对谈判能否顺利进行有很大的影响，如果只复述了双方要表达的大义，而用词却不够准确，这就是译员的失职。
3. 口译具有复杂性想要成为一名优秀的译员，要具备跟多素质：丰富的知识、良好的沟通能力、过硬的心理素质等等。
首先，译员需要有各方面的知识储备，这些知识既包括历史文化知识和相关理论知识, 又包括一些常识广泛的国际知识等。
译员不仅需要成为具备多领域知识的人才，还有把这些知识灵活的运用于翻译过程中。
其次，在口译过程中，译员会碰到专有名词，特别是地方特色词汇，这些词汇很难找到英文对等词。
解释这些内容的过程是跨文化交流的体现，也证明的口译并不是单一的翻译，而是复杂学科间的交流。
口译理论(优选.)
巴黎释意学派口译理论（Interpretive theory of translation）1．简介巴黎释意学派诞生于20世纪60年代末的法国，其核心人物是巴黎高等翻译学校的Seleskovitch和Lederer两位教授。
以认知科学理论为指导，围绕着口译过程中意义的感知、理解、记忆、提取与表达进行了坚持不懈的探索，创立了国际口译届第一套系统的、用于解释口译心理过程、指导会议口译教学与实践的理论—释意理论。
2．基本观点该理论认为，翻译，从本质上讲，是一种复杂的交际行为（a complex communicative act）。
释意理论强调翻译是交际行为，翻译的对象绝不是语言，而是借助语言表达的意义，翻译的任务是转达交际意义。
“释意理论”认为，口译不是从源语到译语的直接转换，而是“建立在理解基础上的再表达”。
3．核心观点：口译是以言语理解加上言外知识认知补充（cognitive complement of extralinguistic knowledge）为基础的释意过程。
研究视角口译作为一种信息处理过程：A语口译B语口译三角模式：第一语言Deverbalisation: Immediate and deliberate discarding of the wording and retention of the mental representation of the message 口译过程中，译员为完成特殊交际条件下的功能性需要，在整合语义信息和其他层面的话语信息和语用信息的基础上，在长期工作记忆内形成的、以高层次语义表征或多层次宏观语义网络为基本存在形式和主要存在特征的意义存在状态。
Seleskovitch notes that dropping form aids the interprete r’s memory because they are not concentrating on remembering the words, or even the structure of the sourcetext. Instead, the interpreter understands the message, connects it to long-termmemory, and is then able to reformulate it in a more efficient way.Notes help the interpreter retrieve the message from their long-term memory and consist of, “symbols, arrows, and a key word here or there.”The “key words” may consist of words that will remind the interpreter of the speaker’s point, or of specific information “such as proper names, headings and certain numbers”.“Even memorizing a half dozen words would distract the interpreter, whose attention is already divided between listening to his own words, and those of the speaker...His memory does not store the words of the sentence delivered by the speaker, but only the meaning those words convey.” (Seleskovitch, 1978, 30-31)4．口译的三阶段：a)理解（comprehension）理解的内容是交际意义，而不是语言本身，包括语言知识、认知补充、主题知识与百科知识、交际环境等。
口译即释意关于释意理论及有关争议的反思
口译即释意关于释意理论及有关争议的反思一、本文概述释意理论是口译研究历史上为数不多的主流理论之一，它在上世纪70年代至80年代末占据了口译研究领域的主导地位，并对口译教学产生了深远的影响。
本文的主要目的是对释意理论的关键概念及其主要观点进行梳理，并在此基础上介绍对释意理论质疑的观点。
通过分析释意理论的关键词，本文将对围绕释意理论展开的争议进行反思。
释意理论的主要观点是翻译即释意，它强调口译员在翻译过程中需要理解源语的含义，并根据目标语的表达习惯进行重新表达。
这一理论的核心概念包括释意翻译、脱离原语语言外壳的翻译程序等。
随着口译研究的发展，释意理论也受到了一些批评和质疑。
本文将通过对释意理论的深入探讨，分析其理论贡献和历史意义，并思考其在口译研究和教学中的适用性和局限性。
通过本文的概述，读者可以对释意理论的基本内容和相关争议有一个初步的了解。
二、释意理论的核心观点释意理论，又称解释学，是一种关注文本、言语或行为意义的理论框架。
它起源于哲学领域，特别是由德国哲学家弗里德里希施莱尔马赫和汉斯格奥尔格伽达默尔等人发展的哲学解释学。
这一理论后来被应用于多个领域，包括文学研究、法律、心理学和口译等。
文本的多重意义：释意理论认为，文本不是静态的、单一意义的实体，而是具有多重潜在意义的动态结构。
每个读者或听者都会根据自己的背景知识和经验，对文本进行独特的解读。
读者的角色：在释意过程中，读者或听者扮演着至关重要的角色。
他们的预期、先入为主的观念和文化背景都会影响对文本的理解。
理解文本是一个主观的过程，每个个体的解释都是独一无二的。
历史和文化背景：释意理论强调历史和文化背景在理解过程中的重要性。
文本是在特定的历史和文化背景下产生的，理解文本需要对这些背景有所了解。
解释的循环：理解是一个循环往复的过程，称为“解释的循环”或“理解的循环”。
这意味着在理解一个文本时，我们不断地在整体和部分之间移动，从整体中理解部分，再从部分中理解整体。
翻译理论书评(程思茜G13201039)(可编辑修改word版)
Afterthoughts upon Bassnett’s 《Translation Studies》In this new-born while in-depth field of translation, a variety of monographs 、text books abound in this blooming, glamorous garden, then I choose one glistening rose in full blossom TranslationStudies(the third edition) as my favorite book to undertake a report. The writer---Susan Bassnett is a well-known translation theorist winning her reputation all over the world and celebrated for her tremendous, fruitful translation monographs, translations and compilations. Her research range varies from comparative literature, translation studies, English literature, dramatic productions to the translation phenomena in postcolonial period. Besides, some of her seminal works contributed to the establishment and development of translation, like Constructing cultures: Essays on Literary Translation, Comparative Literature: A critical Introduction, blaze the trail for the cultural translation school. And this book makes a name for her proving to be one of her most influential works.This book consists of four main parts: “Preface” to the third edition, “Introduction”, “Contents” and “Conclusion”. In the preface, Bassnett elaborated upon the cause, status quo and prospect of this discipline and also sketched the background knowledge. Then, in the introduction part, she pointed out the pivotal goal of this book, which is an attempt to outline the scope of that discipline, to give some indication of the kind of work that has been done so far and to suggest directions in which further research is needed. Most importantly, it is indeed a discipline in its own right: not merely a minor branch of other disciplines. She also holds that translation study is one kind of discipline deeply, firmly implanted in the practice. So the combination of theory and practice in this discipline is of great value and importance. After that, she used four research atmospheres to construct the range of this discipline: History of Translation, Translation in the TL culture, Translation and Linguistics, Translation and Poetics. The “contents” part comprises three chapters: central issues, history of translation, specific problems of literary translation. In the first chapter, it touches upon issues like Language and culture, Types of translation, Decoding and recoding, Problems ofequivalence, Loss and gain, etc. Bassnett freed from the shackles of the old, clichéd debates on some issues, provided her new insight into theses issues. In the second chapter, Bassnett cherished the history as thread to give a comb of the different views in various periods of western culture, and pondered over the effects and change of functions of translation. It covered periods from “The Romans” to “The Renaissance” to “The seventeenth, eighteenth centur ies” until “The twentieth century”. In the last chapter, at the beginning, she compared the close relationship between theory and practice to that between driver and mechanic. And finally she suggested that, in terms of a careful analysis of cases and examples, translators would give rise to different specific issues after choosing disparate translation criteria. She introduced different translation criteria in the process of translating poetry, prose and dramatic texts, cited some examples from original works for our reference. In “conclusion”, she confessed that some other vast amount of material was left undiscussed, such as: machine translation, cinematic texts, oral translation or interpreting; these are like fly in the ointment. Above mentioned is the general outline of the whole book.Actually, this marks a significant milestone in the development and strengthening of this discipline. The biggest contribution is that it circumscribes the basic research domain of translation study as the separate, independent discipline. It also highlights that translation study should focus on the cultural level to have the whole meditation upon translation, which opens the door of “cultural turn”. Secondly, this book puts forward some basic principles of cultural translation school. Before, the translation field was overwhelmed with the linguistic perspectives on translation, to name just a few, Nida’s “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence”, Newmark’s “semantic and communicative translation”, Toury’s different kinds of norms. It’s from this book that the general structure and blueprint of cultural translation school has been gradually constructed. What’s more, she even expounded on the basic notions of this school in the first edition of this book: A focus should be pinned on the historic, cultural background behind texts, what criteria decided translators’strategies in translation, and we should attempt atrecognizing how the complicated process of controlling texts produced. Thirdly, there are some minor while still glittering lights cast upon readers from the book. It gives us a comparatively systematic line of the translation history in western culture. Attention to “history” here means not merely the main translation principles, strategies in different periods, but also the cultural and historic elements of SL and TL texts. Besides, she might be courageous enough to challenge, or even topple down the core principles of “equivalence”, “fidelity”, “translatability” in traditional translation views, and regarded the translation history, some other cultural views as being set in the equal place with linguistics. Maybe these radical and audacious views incurred criticism and doubts from other translators and theorists.Every leaf has two sides; this book is no exception. Since the publication, this book has been leveled criticism, suspicion from different voices. Generally, the structure of this book seems to be general and sweeping. It falls short of the specific, systematic research methods and doesn’t provide us with some instrumental principles, methods, strategy easily to be practiced. So in some aspects, it doesn’t delve into the broader and deeper part of some theories, just like a dragonfly skimming the water surface. In spite of her promotion of combining the theory with practice, in translating poetry and dramatic texts, it’s obvious there is a lack of relevant theories supporting the analysis of original works in detail. More specifically, I was skeptical about her defining of equivalence in this book: the first lays on an emphasis on the special problems of semantics and on the transfer of semantic transfer from SL to TL, the second explores the question of equivalence of literary texts. After contemplation, the doubts exist in whether it’s scientific and overall. Besides literary texts, other types of texts’ problems of equivalence seem to be ignored. Her two lines can’t cover the core nature of equivalence, not to mention, the gamut of it. Then, the translation of dramatic texts attracted m y interests, esp. the principle of “playability”. It indeed makes huge progress in that it moves away from adhering to the original texts too closely to focusing on the performable aspects of texts. However, after considerate reading, problems loom large. There seems to lack thespecific, working principles or methods. And in the practical translation of dramatic texts, even if there are setting criteria of “playability”, they will vary accompanied by the change of different cultures, periods, text types. What’s worse, “playability” in translating dramatic texts sometimes fall victim to other sides’ full advantages. So in the directors, theatre managers’ eyes, the SL texts were anything but sacred, and were reshaped according to very basic needs---the audience expectations, size of company, repertoire of performers, limitation of time and space, etc. So they reshaped the text actually in order to satisfy their own benefits to maximum, and used the term as an excuse to exercise greater liberties with the text than convention allowed. Bassnett herself also realized the impossibility to exercise this “playability”, as a result, after 1985, she gave up the “playability”, then began to run counter to her former theories in a series of papers, namely: Ways through the Labyrinth: Strategies and Methods for Translating Theatre Texts; Translating for the theatre---Textual complexities; Translating for the theatre: The Case Against Performability. She once admitted that performability was nothing but a human illusion, finally vanishing into thin air in reality. She also considered other precious elements in the performance part, compensating for the loss in the TT, for example, encoded gestic moves, kinesic, paralinguistic signs, deictic units all play an indispensable role in the performance of dramatic texts. So the dramatic SL can be displayed vividly in fidelity by the use of these elements in the actors’ part. Differences in register involving age, gender, social positions, consistency in monologue should take priority over an abstract, individualistic notion of performability. So all these encourage and force her to abandon “playability” resolutely and determinedly.To sum up, this book, just like a beam of sunshine, illuminates the whole translation field; also like a glistening pearl, glitters incessantly to eternity. Despite its tiny weakness, its brilliant lights will never be overshadowed, so it continues to exert profound influence upon generations after generations who read it.。
当代国际口译研究视域下的巴黎学派口译理论
当代国际口译研究视域下的巴黎学派口译理论一、概述随着全球化的推进和国际交流的日益频繁，口译作为跨语言、跨文化沟通的重要桥梁，在国际事务、商务活动、文化交流等领域发挥着不可替代的作用。
巴黎学派口译理论作为当代国际口译研究的重要分支，其独特的理论视角和实践方法对于深化口译理论研究、提升口译实践水平具有重要意义。
本文旨在从当代国际口译研究的视域下，对巴黎学派口译理论进行深入探讨和分析，以期为我国口译理论研究和实践发展提供新的视角和启示。
巴黎学派口译理论起源于20世纪60年代的法国，其代表人物包括勒代雷、塞莱斯科维奇等。
该学派强调口译的交际性和互动性，认为口译不仅仅是语言的转换，更是意义的传递和交流。
在巴黎学派的理论框架中，口译被视为一个复杂的认知过程，涉及语言理解、信息重组、语言表达等多个环节。
同时，巴黎学派也注重口译实践的训练和培养，提出了一系列口译教学方法和技巧，对于提高口译员的专业素养和实践能力具有重要指导作用。
当代国际口译研究视域下的巴黎学派口译理论，不仅关注口译的内在机制和规律，也关注口译在全球化背景下的实际应用和发展。
随着科技的进步和国际交流的不断深化，口译面临着新的挑战和机遇。
巴黎学派口译理论在应对这些挑战和把握机遇方面，具有独特的理论优势和实践价值。
深入研究巴黎学派口译理论，对于推动当代国际口译研究的深入发展，提升我国口译事业的整体水平，具有重要的理论意义和实践价值。
1. 简述口译的重要性和当代国际口译研究的背景。
口译作为一种跨语言、跨文化的交流方式，在全球化的今天显得尤为重要。
随着国际交流的日益频繁，口译作为语言服务的核心组成部分，承担着桥梁和纽带的角色，使不同国家和文化之间的人们能够顺畅沟通，共同推进全球合作与发展。
当代国际口译研究背景广阔且复杂。
随着科技的飞速进步，尤其是人工智能和机器翻译技术的日新月异，口译行业正面临着前所未有的挑战与机遇。
传统的口译模式和方法正逐步与现代科技相结合，形成了一种新的口译生态。
口译基础知识和技巧1口译概述
口译基础知识和技巧1口译概述口译是一种语言传递和交流的技巧，通过将一种语言的信息转化为另一种语言的信息，使不同语言和文化背景的人们能够相互理解和沟通。
口译是一项复杂而具有挑战性的工作，需要高度的专业知识和技巧。
本文将概述口译的基础知识和技巧。
口译的基本原则是忠实、准确和完整地传递原文的意思。
口译者需要了解源语言和目标语言的语法、词汇、语义和文化，以确保信息的精确传递。
同时，口译者还需要掌握专业术语，并能够在短时间内快速理解和转化信息。
口译的基本技巧包括听力、理解、记忆、转换和表达。
首先，口译者需要有良好的听力技巧，能够准确地听到并理解原文的信息。
其次，口译者需要快速理解原文的意思，并能够在脑海中形成一张准确的图像。
同时，口译者还需要具备良好的记忆力，能够记住一定长度的原文信息，并在翻译过程中不断回忆。
然后，口译者需要将原文信息准确地转换为目标语言，使用适当的词汇和语法结构表达出来。
最后，口译者需要具备良好的口头表达能力，能够流畅地传递信息，并注意语调和语速。
口译的流程一般包括准备、翻译和校对三个阶段。
在准备阶段，口译者需要提前了解话题和背景知识，熟悉专业术语，甚至可能预先翻译一些常用的片段。
在翻译阶段，口译者需要紧跟原文的节奏，准确地转换信息，并在必要时做一些适当的澄清和补充。
在校对阶段，口译者需要回顾和修正翻译结果，确保其准确性和完整性。
口译的难点主要有词汇、语法、语言风格和文化差异等方面。
口译者需要具备广泛的词汇量，能够熟练运用各种语法结构，并能够理解和适应不同的语言风格和表达方式。
此外，口译者还需要了解不同文化之间的差异，以避免误解和失误。
口译的质量取决于许多因素，包括口译者的能力和经验，翻译的准确性和流畅性，以及与演讲者或听众的配合。
为了提高口译的质量，口译者可以通过练习听力、口语和读写等多种技能来提高自己的能力。
同时，他们还可以参加培训课程和专业考试，获取相关的证书和资格，提升自己的专业水平。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
口译理论概述书评释意学基础上的口译理论——评介鲍刚的《口译理论概述》严婧(江西财经大学外国语学院南昌 330013)引言:释意学派，又称“达意理论”，是20世纪60、70年代产生于法国的一个探讨口译与非文学文本笔译原理与教学的学派。
该派认为翻译即释意;是译者通过语言符号和自身的认知补充对原文意思所做的一种解释;译者应追求的不是语言单位的对等，而是原文意思或效果的等值。
该派理论直接来源于口译实践，其观点对于翻译研究有着独特的启示。
由鲍刚所著的这本《口译理论概述》则在国内口译理论研究稀缺的情况下，从释意学的角度为读者总结了口译的特征，准备与理论知识。
关键词:释意理论;口译;认知心理学一、内容提要全书共分为六章。
第一章导论为我们介绍了口译的产生、发展以及口译理论的研究方法。
第二章，作者介绍了口语的特点以及与此对应口译的相关训练方法。
第三章主要从认知心理学角度讲述了口译过程中，信息的接受与解码。
第四章，本书探讨了原语的贮存以及如何有效记笔记的问题。
第五章主要研究了口译过程的第二步，即:“脱离词语外壳”进行口头翻译。
俗话说，“知己知彼，百战不殆”、“不打无准备之战”。
本书结尾处，主要探讨了口译的译前准备。
二、我的评价首先，我通过第一章内容来谈谈口译理论的发展趋势以及我对目前口译理论的看法。
尽管释意理论现今已在国际口译理论界得到了广泛的认可，但是国内乃至国际上仍然缺少具有实证意义的、科学的系统化口译理论。
释意理论与其说为口译研究提供了现成答案，还不如说为这一领域的研究指出了一条可行的，然而却布满了荆棘的前进道路……口译研究仍然有不少的问题有待于解决，释意理论也需要进一步普及、发展，并需要启动多学科研究成果予以实证。
我认为释意理论道出了口译之本质，然而下一步的工作，应该是如何以科学的方式，证明这一本质以何种方式在口译各个相关领域中存在的问题。
解决这一问题不仅有利于读者更深刻地理解这一理论，还可以使得我们能够更好地指导国内译员的实践与培训。
释意学派认为:翻译是一种交际行为。
翻译的目的在于传递交际意义。
成功的翻译应该在篇章的层次上进行，即对篇章进行释意，因为句子是语法上的单位，篇章才是语义单位;翻译所译的是意义，而不是语法或单个的字、词、句。
原文和译文的等值表现为整体交际意义上的等值，即译文能在其读者或听众那儿产生与原文一致的效果。
显然，这里，不能以字词句，而应以语义单位作为翻译的基本单位。
此外，作者还探讨了口译理论研究的一些常用方法。
这里，我重点谈谈“黑箱法”。
它是指我们通过观察译员的语病、语误、间断等是如何产生以及何时产生等现象，使用心理语言学的分析方法，较为有依据地判断出议员如何组织译语。
总之，本书以“实证”为主要工作原则，对口译工作中所涉及的原语理解、译员思维、译语表达、口语特点等一系列现象作出尽量科学化的、理论上的探讨。
本书关注的是源自口译实践的、考虑到人的因素和语言内、外因素的理论，以及那些具有普遍意义的口译规律，而并不特别关注仅是考虑到双语形式对比的语言学分析，或是个别口译“天才”的个性化临场发挥。
在关于口译的研究工作中，我们对言语的关心其实远胜过了对语言的关心，因为口译工作者接触的那些有着鲜明口译工作特点的原语或译语表义符号更是一种言语。
口译中涉及的言语有外部言语和内部言语两种。
内部言语的特点:(1) 仅由最具主干性质的简要词汇或其他简短的语义载体符号构成，并因语境明确、话语主题已为言语者明了等原因而常省略主语、主题，仅剩少量提示性形式。
(2)很少有虚词，并且不一定合乎语法规律或其他的语言表达习惯或规律。
(3)有时甚至可不一定具有语音形式，或“规范”的语音形式，其含义仅供言语者自己“内部”懂得即可。
(4)能以多头绪、非线性、“跳跃”的方式发展，运作速度远快于外部语言那种线性的发布速度，几乎与敏捷的思维同步。
因此，我们在研究口译过程时需要注意内部言语向外部言语的转换代表着言语者整理思维诸多程式的一种。
接着，本章通过对比研究法，探讨了口语相对于笔语的一些不同特点:(1)口语具有某种“先决存在性”，因而其是与笔语同样重要的人类交流体系。
(2)口语的“暂留性”和“发布上的相对迅速性”。
这就决定了口译者有保留住原语话语意义的可能，而无保留住原语话语语汇的可能。
(个别关键性的重点词语等除外)从口译实用角度来看，保留原语话语的词汇也极少具有实际意义。
因为多数听众感兴趣的是原语话语的内容而非单词。
(4)口语“信息的模糊与松散性”。
因此，译者的译语在一般情况下必然会与普通口语一样，具备某种即席性。
我们无法要求译者的译语像笔译所用的笔语那样严谨、漂亮。
但同时，经过专业培训的口译译员又应在语音信息清晰度、结构、措辞等方面优于一般口语。
(5)口语对副语言信息或主题、交际环境、语境等其他一些超出语言的信息的充分调动。
在巴黎释意理论术语中，所有“纯”语言以外的信息均被看作“语言外信息”。
这些信息可对口语中的语言信息作出有力的提示，使得话语交流中交流各方将注意力指向它们所提示的实质性内容信息，忽略重复、累赘的信息。
口语的理解不能离开主题、语境、交际环境等语言以外的因素。
(6)口语信息反馈的充分性。
任何口语都是双向性质的。
(7)“口语言语计划的即席性特点”。
其外在的反映是:口误的难以避免性，以及口语话语结构、信息的松散性。
(8)口语的语言结构性规律及口头修辞习惯与笔语有所不同。
口语的规则很可能是参照某种“意会”的信息交流体系和“省力”等交流原则而构建的。
口译受上述口语特点的影响，一定会发展出一套独特的、与笔译相比有所不同的工作方式。
“工作语言”的概念是口译工作所依赖的语言基础，反映着译者的重要基本功之一。
所谓“工作语言”，并不是指某种可以脱离一般口语的整体概念而独立的口语，它只是指口语整体概念中的一个职业化分支，包含着所有那些具备口语特定技术的工作中最为常见的、有代表性的言语，包括庄严体、正式体、普通体等语体，这些语体所拥有的较高语级，特定的题材类别，和口译中所能遇到的话语语篇结构，如会谈、谈判、会议发言、技术研讨、产品介绍、商务往来等特定的语篇结构。
对话语类别(叙述语类、介绍语类、论证语类、联想语类)的研究是很必要的，它可以深化我们对各种话语的结构认识，也有利于促进发展口译工作。
我国的语言心理研究人员也注意到了类似的话语的心理组织现象，并沿用了国外语言心理学术语script，将其称为“图式”。
这些研究人员认为“图式”可分为“事件图式”、“场景图式”、“故事图式”和言语接受者对言语中涉及的人物进行角色投入的“角色图式”等，并认为它们体现出了人类对话语的某种心理组织状况，反映着事物构成的相关知识，如空间的构成、时间的构成和情节，而且还反映着这些相关知识结构的内部联系，以及这些联系在话语的理解和记忆等过程中所起到的重要作用。
我国在校学习B语的学生大都属于合成形双语者。
他们在进行口译时，习惯将B语转换为熟知的A语系统，这往往会使得他们拘泥于A语的语言形式，影响翻译质量。
所以我国现在致力于培养语言“脑分区贮存”的并列性双语者。
总而言之，口译重意会。
我们在口译研究中基本不用语言结构对比的方式研究双语。
第三章主要研究口译中的听辨与理解。
首先口译中所遇到的语音全部是真实的现场言语的语音，并且在多数场合下都发自有一定语言能力的、能够连贯表达的话语者的口中，因此，它不太可能是一个个单独地、孤立地发布出来的。
实际上，这些语音大多连在一起，组合成一组组地语音群，融汇在连绵不断的语流里，表现出某种“连续性”成串语音群体的运动性质。
此外，实际工作时的原语话语语音会在很大程度上受到周围环境的噪声，语流中前后排列的语音，话语的语速等影响。
所以口译中的听辨不同于我们日常外语院校的听说训练。
在口译的语音听辨过程中，译员对实际缺失语音的“幻觉”复原现象与不清晰语音的补充现象在本质上还是类似的。
它们都是译员大脑在熟练的前提下启动双语语言长时记忆库中的语义经验和句法经验，对原语声学刺激做出或A语、或B语的自动化语音反应，其参照值可以是语言的，也可以是语言外的。
法国巴黎释意理论也认为，口译的听辨过程中存在着某种“内心填补”现象。
“声音只是部分地被接受，被传达，听的行为是既根据听者已有的知识又根据声响的现实本身来进行的，因为人们可以把不完全的感觉融合到已知的整体中去。
相关声音通过筛选和内心补充超越了周围的嘈杂声。
这一现象适用于所有声音，尤其是组成有条理的言语的声音。
任何被记住的感觉刺激时经释意补充的筛选结果”。
口译活动中所要理解的意义是言语的意义。
言语的意义是指“话语语篇的整体意义”。
它是言语的实际应用意义，基本上等于我们通常说的“语境意义”。
口译译者在体会B语语义时，都存在着某种“语义参照场”，这一参照场结合了语言+语言外的各种信息，为译员提供强有力的信息参值。
口译的理解不同于一般人的自然理解。
它具体可以分为以下五个层次:(1)迅速对原语内容要点进行标定并做出整理，把握住语篇整体意义。
(2)抓住要点间的逻辑关系，并根据原语的不同语类掌握原语叙述、介绍或论述的线索。
(3)将话语的主题、语境、交际环境、语言的前后句法关系、各种副语言信息和其它语言外的“认知库”信息纳入理解轨道。
(4)利用译前准备或译员预先储备、积累的口译经验为口译现场理解提供一定的参照值。
(5)迅速地、半自动化地进行译语搜觅并对关键词语或数字、术语等做出代码转换。
口译的理解程序几乎是与听辨过程同时开始的。
通过本章节，我们不难看出，口译“思维理解”无疑具有某种“整合”性质。
它的实施过程实际上是一种整体层次上的语义信息的分析、合成过程，是一种在听辨与“语段初加工理解”基础上，对感知的原语整体进行准确、全面的语篇浓缩的特殊加工过程。
口译的“思维理解”所要解决的并非仅仅是“理解哪些内容”的问题，它还尤其要解决“如何理解这些内容”的问题。
巴黎高翻学院的教员常用“理性的理解”来形容这一理解方式。
在第四章中，本书主要探讨了原语贮存与笔记的问题。
首先，我们得明确瞬时记忆、短时记忆和长时记忆这三个概念。
一般而言，瞬时记忆与口译工作中的原语听辨有关，而短时记忆和长时记忆则与译员对原语的内容、关键词语等信息的贮存有关，其中长时记忆还与B语的学习，以及译员的“译前准备”工作有着特别的关系。
口译中“中期记忆”或“工作记忆”的概念则指人脑在一定的任务压力下于短时间内、或较短的时间内对某些信息的保持，亦即人脑由于工作需要而表现出的适应变化和系统性，目的是为了更好地完成工作，如人脑对某些数目的编码等。
它可以大大超出一般性质的短时记忆信息贮存量。
记忆的最后阶段时信息的提取。
根据心理学，信息的提取有两种表现，即“回忆”和“再认”。
“回忆”的概念指某种经验过的事物不在眼前也能回想起来的心理现象，而“再认”则指经验过的事物再度出现在眼前时能够回想起来的心理现象。