The name and nature of Translation studies(2000)翻译学名与实
《英语翻译》PPT课件
• 翻译是异语交际活动，通过语言转换达到交际 目的。（张泽乾）
编辑ppt
8
The Definition of Translation
• Semantic views on translation:
• Translation is rendering the meaning of a text into another language in the way that author intended the text. (Newmark)
• 翻译是将一种语言文字所蕴含的意思用另一种 语言文字表达出来的文化活动。 (王克非)
编辑ppt
10
The Criteria for Translation
• General laws of translation (Tytler) • 1. The translation should give a complete
A branch of science
编辑ppt
2
The Nature of Translation
• What is the nature of translation?
傅雷
An art
编辑ppt
3
The Nature of Translation 孙迎春
skill/craft/instrument
-- Eugene Nida
所谓翻译，是指从语义到风格在译语中用最 切近而又最自然的对等语再现原语的信息。
--尤金.奈达
编辑ppt
7
The Definition of Translation
• Communicative views on translation:
• The translator attempts to produce the same effect on the target language readers as was produced on the original source language readers. (Newmark)
第一章 翻译研究名与实
21内容提要霍姆斯的这篇文章一直被翻译研究界视为具有划时代的重要意义。
两千多年以来，人们对翻译的方方面面进行了不懈的探讨，但对翻译研究作为一门学科的研究对象、研究范围以及研究方法却不甚明了，或莫衷一是。
首先，霍姆斯提出将翻译研究（Translation Studies ）作为学科的称谓，并强调翻译研究是一门经验学科，研究对象是翻译活动（过程）和翻译作品；翻译研究的功能是不仅要探讨如何翻译，同时还要描述翻译现象和行为，解释、甚至预测未来的翻译。
更重要的是，霍姆斯第一次详尽地描绘出翻译研究的结构图（见下页）。
对照这个图可以发现，翻译研究的领域比我们传统想像的要宽阔得多。
黑体是我国研究较为深入的领域，而下划线表示还有待加强。
此外，还有一些未开垦的处女地。
这个结构图同时表示了翻译研究自下而上的发展路径：首先作者简介詹姆斯·霍姆斯（James Holmes )，著名的翻译理论家。
生于美国艾奥瓦中部，曾就读于威廉·潘学院和布朗大学；1949年作为富布赖特交换教师到荷兰国际学院任教，1950年移居阿姆斯特丹，以自由编辑和诗歌翻译为业。
1956年以非本族语使用者身份荣获翻译大奖，1964年任阿姆斯特丹大学翻译研究高级讲师。
发表多篇有关翻译的论文，《翻译研究名与实》（The Name and Nature of Translation Studies, 1972)第一次比较完整系统地界定了翻译研究作为一个跨学科的研究领域，成为当代翻译研究划时代的重要文献，得到国际译界的普遍认可。
本篇选自James Holmes 的Translated! Papers on Literary and Translation Studies ，由Rodopi 出版社于1994年出版。
第一章翻译研究名与实The Name and Nature of Translation Studies 1 James S. Holmes当代西方翻译研究原典选读22翻译史与翻译研究方法论是翻译实践和翻译活动本身，然后是对翻译现象的客观描述，然后是概括出规律，形成翻译原则，抽象成为翻译理论。
introducingtranslationstudies《翻译研究入门知识点总结》
Introducing Translation Studies—Theories and ApplicationsName: Zhu MiClass: English 1122013/12/24Introducing Translation Studies—Theories and ApplicationsI.Main issues of translation studies1.1The concept of translationThe term translation itself has several meanings: it can refer to the general subject field, the product or the process.The process of translation between two different written languages involves the translator changing an original verbal language into a written text in a different verbal language.—interlingual translationThe Russian-American structuralist Roman Jakobson in his seminal paper”On linguistic aspects of translation’gave his categories as intralingual translation, interlingual translation and intersemiotic translation.1.2What are translation studies?Written and spoken translations traditionally were for scholarship and religious purposes.Yet the study of translation as an academic subject has only really begun in the past fifty years, thanks to the Dutch-based US scholar James S.Holmes.Reasons f or prominence: first, there has been a proliferation of specialized translating and interpreting courses at both and undergraduate and postgraduate level; second, other courses, in smaller numbers, focus on the practice of literary translation; the 1990s also saw a proliferation of conferences, books and journals on translation in many languages; in addition, various translation events were held in India, and an on-line translation symposium was organized.1.3A brief history of the disciplineThe practice of translation was discussed by, for example, Cicero and Horace and St Jerome;their writings were to exert an important influence up until the twentieth century.The study of translation of the field developed into an academic discipline only in the second half of the twentieth century.Before that, translation had normally been merely an element of language learning in modern language courses, known for the grammar-translation method.With the rise of the direct method or communicative approach to English language teaching in the 1960s and 1970s, the grammar-translation method fell into increasing disrepute.In the USA, translation was promoted in universities in the 1960s by the translation workshop concept. Running parallel to it was that of c omparative literature.Another area in which translation become the subject of research was c ontrastive analysis.The continued application of a linguistic approach in general, and specific linguistic models such as generative grammar or functional grammar, has demonstrated a n inherent and gutlink with translation. And it began to emerge in the 1950s and 1960s.—Eugene Nida1.4The Holmes/Toury “map”James S.Holems’s” The name and nature of translation studies” was regarded as “generally accepted as the founding statement for the field”. He puts forward an overall framework, describing what translation studies covers. It has been subsequently presented by Gideon Toury.Another area Holmes mention is translation policy, where he sees the translation scholar advising on the place of translation in society, including what place, if any, it should occupy in the language teaching and learning curriculum.“Translation policy”would nowadays far more likely be related to the ideology that determines translation than was the case in Holmes description.1.5Developments since the 1970sContrastive analysis has fallen by the way side. The linguistic-oriented “science”of translation has continued strongly in Germany, but the concept of equivalence associated with it has declined.Germany has seen the rise of theories centred on text types and text purpose, while the Hallidayan influence of discourse analysis and systemic functional grammar, which vies language as a communicative act in a sociocultural context, has been prominent over the past decades, especially in Australia and the UK.The late 1970s and 1980s also saw the rise of a descriptive approach that had its origins in comparative literature and Russian Formalism.The polysystemists have worked with a Belgium-based group and the UK-based scholars.The 1990s saw the incorporation of new schools a nd concepts, with Canadian-based translation and gender research led by Sherry Simon, the Brazilian cannibalist school promoted by Else Vieira, postcolonial translation theory.II.Translation theory before the twentieth century2.1“Word-for-word” or “sense-for-sense”?Up until the second half of the twentieth century, translation theory seemed locked in whatof“literal”, ”free”and “faithful”George Steiner calls a ”sterile” debate over the “triad”translation. The distinction goes back to Cicero and St Jerome.Cicero said,”…keeping the same ideas and forms…but in language which conforms to our usage…Ｉpreserved the general style and force of the language.”He disparaged word-for-word translation.St Jerome said,”…where even the syntax contains a mystery—I render not word-for-word, but sense-for-sense.”2.2Martin LutherLuther follows St Jerome in rejecting a word-for-word translation strategy since it would beunable to convey the same meaning as the ST and would sometimes be incomprehensible. He focuses on the TL and the TT reader and his famous quote:” You must ask the mother at home, the children in the street, the ordinary man in the market and look at their mouths, how they speak, and translate that way; then they’ll understand and see that you’re speakingto them in German.”2.3Faithfulness, spirit and truthFlora Amos notes that early translators often differed considerably in the meaning they gave to terms such as “faithfulness”, “accuracy” and even the word “translation” itself.Louis Kelly in The True Interpreter calls the “inextricably tangled”terms “fidelity”, ”spirit”and“truth”.Kelly considers that it was not until the twelfth century that truth was fully equated with “content”. By the seventeenth century, fidelity had come to be generally regarded as more than just fidelity to words, and spirit lost the religious sense and was thenceforth used solely in the sense of the creative energy of a text or language.2.4Early attempts at systematic translation theory: Dryden, Dolet andTytlerFor Amos, the England of the seventeenth century—with Denham, Cowley and Dryden—marked an important step forward in translation theory with” deliberate, reasoned statements, unmistakable in their purpose and meaning”.John Dryden reduces all translations to three categories: metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation. Dryden thus prefers paraphrase, advising that metaphrase and imitation be avoided. He is author-oriented.Etienne Dolet is TL-reader-oriented and sets out five principles in his 1540 manuscript The Way of Translating Well from One Language into Another”:1.The translator must perfectly understand the sense and material of the original author,although he should feel free to clarify obscurities.2.The translator should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL, so as not to lessen themajesty of the language.3.The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings.4.The translator should avoid Latinate and unusual forms.5.The translator should assemble and liaise words eloquently to avoid clumsiness.Alexander Fraser Tytler has three general “laws” or “rules”:1.The translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work.2.The style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original.3.The translation should have all the ease of the original composition.2.5Schleiermacher and the valorization of the foreignWhile the 17th century had been about imitation and the 18th century about the translator’sduty to recreate the spirit of the ST for the reader of the time, the Romanticism of the early nineteenth century discussed the issues of translatability or untranslatability.In 1813, the German theologian and translator Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote On The Different Methods of Translating and put forward a Romantic approach to interpretation based on the individual’s inner feeling and understanding.He first distinguishes two different types of translator working on two different types of text:1.the “Dolmetscher”, who translates commercial texts;2.the “übersetzer”, who works on scholarly and artistic texts.How to bring the ST writer and the TT reader together is the real question. He considerstranslator: Either the translator leaves the there to be only two paths open for the “true”writer alone as much as possible and moves the reader toward the writer, or he leaves the reader alone as much as and moves the writer toward the reader.Schleiermacher’s consideration of different text type becomes more prominent in Reiss’s text typology.The “alienating”and “naturalizing”opposites are taken up by Venuti as “foreignization”and “domestication”.Additionally, the vision of a “language of translation”is pursued by Walter Benjamin and the description of the hermeneutics of translation is apparent in George Steiner’s “hermeneutic motion”.2.6Translation theory of the ninetieth and early twentieth centuries inBritainIn Britain, the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century focused on the status of the ST and the form of the TL.Francis Newman emphasized the foreignness of the work by a deliberately archaic translation.Matthew Arnold advocated a transparent translation method.2.7Towards contemporary translation theoryGeorge Steiner l ists a small number of 14 writers who represent “very nearly the sum total of those who have said anything fundamental or new about translation”, includes St Jerome, Luther, Dryden and Schleiermacher and also takes us into the 20th century with Ezra Pound and Walter Benjamin, amongst others.He covers a range of theoretical ideas in this period: We have seen how much of the theory of translation—if there is one as distinct from idealized recipes—pivots monotonously around undefined alternatives: ”letter”or “spirit”, ”word”or “sense”. The dichotomy is assumed to have analyzable meaning. This is the central epistemological weakness and sleight of hand.Translation theory in the second half of the 20th century made various attempts to redefine the concepts “literal”and “free”in operational terms, to describe “meaning”i n scientific terms, and to put together systematic taxonomies of translation phenomena.Case studiesThe criteria for assessing the translations are given:1.accuracy: the correct transfer of information and evidence of complete comprehension.2.the appropriate choice of vocabulary, idiom, terminology and register;3.cohesion, coherence and organization;4.accuracy in technical aspects of punctuation, etc.III.Equivalence and equivalent effect3.1Roman Jakobson: the nature of linguistic meaning and equivalenceIn his paper “On linguistic aspects of translation”, he describes three kinds of translation: intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic translation and he goes on to examine key issue of interlingual translation, notably linguistic meaning and equivalence.Jakobson approaches a now-famous definition: “Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.”He thinks poetry is which requires “creative” transposition.“untranslatable”，3.2Nida and “the science of translating”3.2.1The nature of meaning: advances in semantics and pragmaticsMeaning is broken down into linguistic meaning, referential meaning and emotivemeaning. There are three techniques: hierarchical structuring, componentialanalysis a nd semantic structure analysis.3.2.2The influence of ChomskyNoam Chomsky’s generative-transformational model analyzes sentences into a series of related levels governed by rules. The key features of this model can be summarized:1.Phrase-structure rules generate an underlying or deep structure w hich is2.transformed by transformational rules relating one underlying structure to another,to produce.3. a final surface structure,which itself is subject to phonological and morphemicrules.Nida presents a three-stage system of translation (analysis, transfer andrestructuring).This involves analysis using generative-transformational grammar’s four types offunctional class: events, objects, abstracts and relationals.3.2.3Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effectFor Nida, the success of the translation depends above all on achieving equivalentresponse. It is one of the “four basic requirements of a translation”, which are1making sense;2conveying the spirit and manner of the original;3having a natural and easy form of expression;4producing a similar response.3.3Newmark: semantic and communicative translationIn Newmark’s Approaches t o Translation and A Textbook of Translation,he suggests narrowing the gap by replacing the old terms with those of “semantic” and “communicative”translation.3.4Koller: Korrespondenz and AquivalenzWerner Koller examines more closely the concept of equivalence and its linked term correspondence. And he also goes on to describe five different types of equivalence: denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic and formal equivalence.IV.The translation shift approach4.1Vinay and Darbelnet’s modelThe two general translation strategies identified by Vinay and Darbelnet are direct translation and oblique translation, w hich hark back to the “literal vs. free” division.The two strategies comprise seven procedures, of which direct translation covers are borrowing, calque, literal translation, transposition and modulation and of which oblique translation includes are equivalence and adaptation.three The seven main translation categories are described as operating on three levels; these levels reflect the main structural elements of the book. They are: the lexicon, syntactic structure and the message.A further more important parameter taken into account by Vinay and Darbelnet is that ofservitude a nd option.They continued by giving s list of five steps f or the translator to follow in moving from ST to TT:1.Identity the units of translation.2.Examine the SL text, evaluating the descriptive, affective and intellectual content of theunits.3.Reconstruct the metalinguistic context of the message.4.Evaluate the stylistic effects.5.Produce and revise the TT.They consider the unit of translation to be a combination of a“lexicological u nit”and a “unit of thought”.4.2Catford and translation “shifts”Catford makes an important distinction between formal correspondence and textual equivalence, which was developed by Koller.Catford considers two kinds of shift: shift of level and shift of category.Most of Catford’s analysis is given over to category shifts. These are subdivided into four kinds: structural shifts, class shifts, unit shifts/rank shifts and intra-system shifts.4.3Czech writing on translation shiftsIn the 1960s and 1970s some writing introduces a literary aspect, that of the “expressive function”or style of a text.4.4Van Leuven-Zwart’s comparative-descriptive model of translationshiftsKitty van Leuven-Zwart applies shift analysis to the descriptive analysis of a translation, attempting both to systematize comparison and to build in a discourse framework above the sentence level.The model is “intended for the description of integral translations of fictional texts”and comprises a comparative model and a descriptive model.Shifts are divided into three main categories w ith numerous subcategories. The three main categories are modulation, modification and mutation.V.Functional theories of translation5.1Text typeKatharina Reiss’s work in the 1970s builds on the concept of equivalence but views the text, rather than the word or sentence, a s the level at which communication is achieved and at which equivalence must be sought. Her functional approach aims initially at systematizing the assessment of translation.Three text types—informative, expressive and operative types—are given by Reiss and presented visually by Cheserman.Reiss also lists a series of intralinguistic and extralinguistic instruction criteria by which the adequacy of a TT may be assessed.5.2Translational actionTranslation action views translation as purpose-driven, outcome-oriented human interaction and focuses on the process of translation as message-transmitter, c ompounds involving intercultural transfer.5.3Skopos theoryHans J. Vermeer introduces skopos into translation theory in the 1970s as a technical term for the purpose of a translation and of the action of translating, as it deals with a translational action that is ST-based.5.4Translation-oriented text analysisChristiane Nord’s Text Analysis in Translation makes a distinction between two basic types of translation production —documentary translation and instrumental translation.VI.Discourse and register analysis approachesVII.Systems theoriesVIII.Varieties of cultural studiesIX.Translating the foreign: the (in)visibility of translation X.Philosophical theories of translationXI.Translation studies as an interdiscipline。
the-name-and-nature-of-translation-studies《翻译学的名与实》
I. 霍姆斯其人：1924-1986生平：霍姆斯出生在美国Iowa爱荷华州，后在宾夕法尼亚州的哈弗福德Haverford学院学习英语文学，1949年受富布莱特项目Fulbright Project资助来到荷兰，从此荷兰成为他的第二故乡。
他虽然一直保留美国国籍，但绝大部分时间是在荷兰度过的。
霍姆斯师从阿姆斯特丹大学荷兰文学系主任，接触了大量荷语文学作品。
他从五十年代处就开始将荷语文学介绍到英语世界，此间也没有间断自己的诗歌创作，他的翻译理论研究工作则始于60年代末期。
在他的老师改任阿姆斯特丹大学综合文学系主任后，霍姆斯被聘为该系教师，除教授文学翻译实践外，他还率先开设了翻译理论课程。
霍姆斯同时还在以培养翻译人才为目标的阿姆斯特丹翻译学院任教。
他极力促成将该学院并入阿姆斯特丹大学人文学院，但1982年二者正式合并并且成立翻译系以后，作为翻译领域最重要的学者，霍姆斯没有顺理成章地成为该系教授，原因之一是他没有博士学位，另一方面则是因为它的同性恋行为、反传统的着装及他在翻译方面的见解为该系一些教员所不容，而霍姆斯也无意为他人而改变自己的生活方式。
他于1985年辞去在阿姆斯特丹大学的教职，次年因艾滋病去世，时年62岁。
成就：霍姆斯在诗歌创作、诗歌翻译和翻译理论研究等方面都有突出成就。
首先，他是一个诗歌翻译家。
霍姆斯最大的贡献在于充当荷兰在英语世界中的文学大使，使世界认识到荷兰文学的存在。
他的第一部译作是1955年出版的《当代荷兰诗选》，在此后30多年的翻译生涯中，他介绍过荷语地区几乎所有重要诗人的作品。
早在1956年，霍姆斯获得象征荷兰文学翻译界最高荣誉的马丁内斯·那霍夫奖（Martinus Nijhoff Prize），成为第一位获此殊荣的外国人。
他还在晚年1984年获得弗兰芒地区首届荷兰语文学奖，是迄今为止唯一获得两个翻译奖项的人。
其次，霍姆斯是一个同性恋诗人。
霍姆斯的诗作既有韵律诗又有自由体诗，绝大多数都是同性恋题材。
简析翻译学中的文化转向
简析翻译学中的文化转向摘要：文化转向是当代西方翻译理论中不可缺少的一部分。
本文试从内部诱因和外部推动力两方面探讨文化转向产生的动因，阐述文化转向产生的积极影响和消极影响。
对文化转向进行简单的论述，目的是为国内相关研究提供借鉴与参考。
关键词：文化转向文化学派翻译研究一、引言二十世纪六七十年代，西方各种文化思想交织激荡、“百家争鸣”，呈现出一派多元化景象。
在这样的背景下，“文化转向”应运而生，为桎梏已久的翻译研究带来曙光。
自二十世纪九十年代，勒菲弗尔（Andre Lefevere）和巴斯奈特（Susan Bassnett）在《翻译、历史与文化》（Translation，History and Culture：A Sourcebook）一书中正式提出“文化转向”以来，这一理论就如洪流一般席卷了整个翻译研究领域，影响至今。
许多专家学者对文化转向智者见智、各抒己见。
基于这种认识，本文试图对翻译学中的“文化转向”进行简述，以期为国内的相關研究提供借鉴与参考。
二、“文化转向”兴起的动因“文化转向”蔚然成风，不仅仅是因为它凭借自身的优势突破了先前理论的禁锢，更离不开文化转向及文化学派外部因素的影响。
因此，可以说“文化转向”这一趋势是在内外力因素共同作用下产生的。
（一）内部诱因“文化转向”的内部推动力主要来源于文化学派的一些积极主张，他们大力倡导将翻译研究的关注点从文本自身转移到文本以外的文化语境上，反对翻译是一种简单式的语言转换，并且极力改变翻译在文艺学中的附属地位，积极推动翻译成为一门独立的学科。
1.翻译地位的改变西方翻译理论在二十世纪之前一直被认为是文艺学的“附庸”，在这种背景下，翻译仅仅被视为是一门艺术，强调译者对原文的创造性再现，甚至被认为是比较文学的一个分支。
直到1971年，霍尔姆斯在《翻译学的名与实》（The Name and Nature of Translation Studies）一书中对翻译作为一门独立研究领域的学科性质、研究范围、学科结构等提出了独到见解，并首次将翻译研究命名为“Translation Studies”，此后，翻译学就开始转变为一门独立的学科，《翻译学的名与实》被视为翻译学科的独立宣言。
The Name and Nature of Translation Studies 翻译学的名与实
特定时间理论
特定问题理论
描写翻译研究、理论翻译研究和应用翻译研究之间的关系
霍尔姆斯认为翻译研究学科正是由描写翻译研究、理论翻译研究和应 用翻译研究这三部分有机构成的。他认为，其中每一部分都为另两部 分提供资料，也都在吸取和利用另两部分的研究成果：应用翻译研究 为描写翻译研究提供研究素材，描写翻译研究的研究成果为理论翻译 研究提供数据和基础，而理论和描写这两部分的研究成果又作用于应 用领域中，为了发展和繁荣整个学科，三者不可偏废任一。
面发展的目标是翻译社会学(或社会翻译学)；
纯粹翻译研究 理论翻译研究（翻译理论） 翻译研究 译者培训 翻译工具 应用翻译研究 翻译政策 翻译批评
翻译过程研究：翻译过程或翻译行为本身，其中涉及到译 者的所思所想对翻译所起到的影响，目标是翻译心理学。 翻译总论 特定媒介理论 特定区域理论 局部翻译理论 特定层级理论 特定文类理论
THANKS
“翻译学学科的创建宣言”。
1 2
பைடு நூலகம்
建立翻译学科的条件
翻译学科的命名
主要内容
3
4
翻译研究的性质和目标
“翻译研究”的学科框架
建立翻译学科的条件
霍尔姆斯在《名与实》一文中指出了翻译学科应具备的建立一门独立学科所
需要的重要条件及其必要性。在过去几百年中，人们对翻译学科的研究始终 十分混乱，直到第二次世界大战之后，很多原本致力于相近学科研究的学者 (如语言学家、哲学家、文学研究家等)以及专注于信息学、逻辑学和数学等 表面上并不相近学科的学者都转向了翻译领域，他们把原学科的范式、半范 式、模型及方法带入翻译研究。翻译学成为独立学科所需的条件随着这些新 鲜研究方法的加入而成熟。
翻译学科的命名
霍尔姆斯认为术语研究在学术研究中处于十分重要的地位，因此，阻碍学科
the name and nature of translation holmesPPT课件
James S. Holmes 王敏 张潇潇 季慧莉
1
标题添加
点击此处输入相 关文本内容
前言
点击此处输入 相关文本内容
标题添加
点击此处输入相 关文本内容
点击此处输入 相关文本内容
2
詹姆斯•霍尔姆斯
• 詹姆斯•霍尔姆斯(James Stratton Holmes，1924— 1986)出生在美国依阿华州，后在宾夕法尼亚州的 哈弗福德(Haverford)学院学习英语文学，1949年受 富布赖特项目(Fulbright Project)资助来到荷兰，他 从五十年代初即开始将荷语文学介绍到英语世界， 此间也没有间断自己的诗歌创作。他的翻译理论研 究工作则始于60年代末期。
6
2. 翻译学学科建设的阻碍因素：
1) One of these impediments is the lack of appropriate channels of communication. 缺少恰当的交流渠道。
7
2）the seemingly trivial matter of a name for this field of research.
(2) to establish general principles by means of which these phenomena can be explaining to and predicted.（建立翻译总 原则）
• 霍尔姆斯在诗歌创作、诗歌翻译和翻译理论研究等 方面都有突出成就 。
3
霍尔姆斯的翻译理论
• the name and nature of translation studies
新编汉英翻译教程(翻译)试题范围
1.What is the nature of translation?●The nature of translation is paraphrasing，or transferring the original（source language ——SL) meaning to the target language (TL)。
●Translation is always meaning-based。
2.What is the most influential and most popular criterion of translation inChina? P.3●pressiveness and elegance (“信、达、雅") –a most influential and mostpopular criterion of translation– that is first advocated by Yan Fu (严复)。
3.What is the criterion of CET adopted in this course—book by Chen Hongweiand Li Yadan? P。
5/7●“Similarity in function and corresponding in meaning” （功能相似,语义相符）is what is adopted as the Criteria of CET in this course-book by Chen Hongwei and Li Yadan.4.What types of culture are there？●There are 3 types of“culture” defined by 邢福义，which are：materialculture，institutional culture and mental culture。