A Relevance Theory Perspective on Translating the
《景点英文翻译研究开题报告文献综述(含提纲)》
1.4 Structure of the Thesis
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Studies on Tourism Translation
2.2 Overview of Relevance Theory
Chapter 3Problems in English Translation of Ancient Architectural Scenic Spots in Xi'an
3.1 Survey by questionnaire
3.1.1 Survey Object
3.1.2 Purpose of Survey
3.1.3 Method of Survey
3.1.4 Findings of Survey
3.2 Problems in English Translation of Ancient Architectural Scenic Spots
Translation of Xi’an ancient architectural spot under the perspective of Relevance Theory
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background of Research
1.2 Significance of Research
3.1.4 调查结果
3.2 古建筑景点英文翻译存在的问题
3.2.1词汇问题
3.2.2 句法问题
3.2.3 语篇问题
第四章 关联理论视角下解决西安古建筑景点英文翻译问题的策略
4.1 提供足够的情境效果
4.1.1 注释
顺应论视阈下《文心雕龙》中的隐喻翻译
２０２１万书言：《亚文化风格的意义》的文化解读顺应论视阈下《文心雕龙》中的隐喻翻译黄菁菁 阮宏芳（合肥师范学院外国语学院 安徽合肥 ２３０６０１）摘 要：翻译是跨语言和跨文化的交际活动，《文心雕龙》中的隐喻翻译对于呈现源语内涵、表达译者意图及传播中国传统文化是至关重要的。
译者杨国斌在翻译隐喻的过程中顺应物理、社交和心理三个层面的语境，并在此基础上灵活使用直译、直译加注解、意译和省略四种翻译策略，以流畅易懂的现代英语展现中国典籍内涵，促进中西文化交流。
关键词：《文心雕龙》； 隐喻翻译； 顺应论； 翻译策略中图分类号：Ｈ０５９ 文献标识码：Ａ 文章编号：２０９６－７６３２（２０２１）０１－００４３－０６ 引 言刘勰的《文心雕龙》是中国第一部系统完整且论述细致的文学理论与批评巨著，蕴含博大精深的文学精神和哲学思想。
在人类命运共同体的新环境下，传承和弘扬中华民族优秀传统文化是我国长期发展的战略，文化典籍的外译有助于坚定文化自信，树立国家正面形象。
作为中国古典文学和美学的理论之源，《文心雕龙》已引起国内外学者的广泛关注。
近一个世纪以来，《文心雕龙》的英译本已达１５种，呈现时间跨度长、多样性、复杂性等特征。
［１］学界对其翻译的研究主要涉及以下几个领域：从术语翻译的角度出发，伍凌以宇文安译本中的“文”“神思”“风骨”为研究对象，解析译者在翻译中的过度诠释［２］；李林波分析“文”“道”“纬”的英译以探讨中国古典文论在英语世界中的重构［３］。
从译者主体性差异入手，施佳胜阐述译文的差异取决于译者的语言能力、翻译策略及文化立场［４］；戴文静历时梳理四个英译本，考察其翻译策略，将译者身份解码为学者型、评论型、大众型和诗人型［５］。
从其对外传播的视角出发，王毓红主张在翻译中应凸显古典文论与现代文论的创新融合，推动中国文论的对外传播［６］；胡作友等从意识形态与翻译交互影响的角度比较研究两个英译本，提出《文心雕龙》的外译有助于中西文论的交流与对话［７］。
论翻译文体学视域下典籍英译的文体选择与翻译策略[权威资料]
![论翻译文体学视域下典籍英译的文体选择与翻译策略[权威资料]](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/16cf6b169b89680202d82542.png)
论翻译文体学视域下典籍英译的文体选择与翻译策略[摘要] 典籍英译译者翻译的过程其实就是进行文体选择的过程。
译者基于自身的背景知识，采用相应的翻译把自己的信息意图通过文体选择传达给译语读者。
译者采用何种翻译策略并不重要，重要的是译语读者基于译者的文体选择进行逆证推理所获得的关于译者信息意图的一系列设想与原语读者基于原作者的文体选择进行逆证推理所获得的关于原作者信息意图的一系列设想是否一致。
如果译者不仅保留了原作者的信息意图，而且其文体选择给译语读者的推理距离与原作者文体选择给原语读者的推理距离基本一致，其译文即可被认为是忠实于原交际行为的翻译。
[关键词] 文体选择；翻译策略；逆证推理[] H059 [] A [] 1671-6639（2013）04-0063-07一、问题的提出文体，简言之，即可感知的有特色的表达方式[1]。
芬兰语言学家Enkvist指出：文体即选择，即在可供选择的表达中做出选择。
换言之，即以最有效的方式说出正确的话[2]。
翻译文体是译者基于美学或主题而做出的选择，“翻译文体学”隶属于文学批评范畴[3]。
典籍翻译的性质决定了典籍翻译须经过语内翻译和语际翻译两个阶段[4]。
相比较而言，语内翻译所涉及的原语与译入语之间主要是时间上的差距，而语际翻译，除了时间上的差距外，还要面对不同空间或文化语境中所使用的不同的语言[5]。
面对时空的差距，译者如何基于诠释的历史性对文体做出选择？选什么与怎么选是横亘在译者面前必须解决的难题。
二、文体翻译的研究方法：基于传统与文化的思考译者作为典籍的读者，首先面对的原文本的表述乃是原作者选择的结果；其次，译者作为目标文本的创作者，其译文表述又是其自身选择的结果。
其中的关键是：被译者感知到的原文有特色的表达方式是“如何传递到译文中，亦或经过了怎样的改变在译文中表达出来，亦或在何种程度上被或能够被保留在译文中”[6]。
西方学界对这一问题的探讨可追溯至古希腊亚里士多德所著的《诗学》。
critical readings in translation studies pdf
critical readings in translationstudies pdfCritical Readings in Translation Studies PDF: A Comprehensive OverviewIntroduction:Translation studies is a multidisciplinary field that explores the theory, practice, and cultural implications of translation. As a crucial resource for scholars, students, and practitioners, the Critical Readings in Translation Studies PDF provides a comprehensive overview of this dynamic and evolving field. This article aims to delve into the key points covered in this influential work, highlighting its significance and relevance.I. Theoretical Foundations of Translation Studies:1.1 Historical Development of Translation Theory:- The emergence of translation theory as a distinct discipline.- The influence of linguistic and literary theories on translation studies.- The shift from equivalence-based approaches to more dynamic and cultural-oriented perspectives.1.2 Key Theoretical Approaches in Translation Studies:- The functionalist approach, emphasizing the purpose and function of translation.- The polysystem theory, focusing on the role of translation in literary systems.- The postcolonial perspective, exploring the power dynamics in translation.1.3 Challenges and Debates in Translation Theory:- The debate between domestication and foreignization strategies.- The role of gender, ideology, and identity in translation.- The ethical considerations in translation, such as censorship and manipulation.II. Translation Practice and Methodology:2.1 Translation Techniques and Strategies:- Literal translation, preserving the original text's structure and meaning.- Adaptation, modifying the source text to suit the target culture.- Localization, adjusting the translation to the linguistic and cultural context of the target audience.2.2 Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT) Tools:- The impact of technology on translation practice.- The use of CAT tools, such as translation memory and terminology management systems.- The benefits and limitations of CAT tools in maintaining translation quality.2.3 Translation Quality Assessment:- The criteria for evaluating translation quality, including accuracy, fluency, and cultural appropriateness.- The role of professional translators and their expertise in ensuring high-quality translations.- The importance of revision and proofreading in the translation process.III. Cultural and Societal Implications of Translation:3.1 Translation as a Cultural Mediator:- The role of translation in promoting intercultural understanding.- The challenges of translating culturally-specific concepts and idioms.- The impact of translation on the preservation and dissemination of cultural heritage.3.2 Translation and Globalization:- The role of translation in facilitating international communication and exchange.- The challenges of translating globalized texts and concepts.- The emergence of World Englishes and its impact on translation practices.3.3 Translation and Power Dynamics:- The unequal distribution of power in translation, particularly in postcolonial contexts.- The role of translators as mediators and gatekeepers of knowledge.- The potential for resistance and subversion in translation practices.IV. Interdisciplinary Perspectives in Translation Studies:4.1 Translation and Linguistics:- The relationship between translation and linguistic theories, such as equivalence and contrastive analysis.- The study of translation phenomena, such as code-switching and intertextuality.- The application of corpus linguistics in translation research.4.2 Translation and Literature:- The translation of literary works and the challenges of capturing the author's style and voice.- The role of translation in the dissemination of world literature.- The impact of translation on the reception and interpretation of literary texts.4.3 Translation and Cultural Studies:- The intersection between translation and cultural studies, exploring the cultural and social dimensions of translation.- The role of translation in the construction and negotiation of cultural identities.- The study of translation as a site of cultural exchange and transformation.V. Future Directions and Emerging Trends in Translation Studies:5.1 Translation and Technology:- The impact of artificial intelligence and machine translation on the translation industry.- The potential for human-machine collaboration in translation.- The ethical considerations and challenges posed by technological advancements.5.2 Translation and Audiovisual Media:- The translation of audiovisual texts, such as films and TV series.- The challenges of subtitling, dubbing, and voice-over translation.- The role of translation in shaping the reception and interpretation of audiovisual works.5.3 Translation and Multimodality:- The study of translation in relation to other modes of communication, such as images and gestures.- The challenges and opportunities of translating multimodal texts.- The implications of multimodal translation for accessibility and inclusivity.Conclusion:In conclusion, the Critical Readings in Translation Studies PDF offers a comprehensive exploration of the theoretical foundations, practical methodologies,cultural implications, interdisciplinary perspectives, and emerging trends in the field of translation studies. By delving into these key points, readers can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and significance of translation, making it an invaluable resource for scholars, students, and practitioners in the field.。
奈达翻译理论研究 第四章 笔记
Chapter four A comparative study of Nida’s theory andJin Di’s theoryJin Di, on the basis of Nida‟s theory, he formulated his own theory of “equivalent effect”.4.1 Jin Di’s Translation TheoryJin Di is renowned for his translation theory of “equivalent effect”and his Chinese version of Ulysses.4.1.1 A survey of Jin’s translation activity and translation studyIn his work In Search of the Principle of Equivalent Effect (1989), he put forward his own theory of “equivalent effect”.4.1.2 Jin’s view on translation before his reception of Nida’s theoryThe gist of his argument was that “translating must meet the requirements of accuracy and smoothness.”“Accuracy” meant the content of the translated text should be consistent with that of the original text.“Smoothness”meant the language of the translated text should conform to the convention of the target language.Accuracy and smoothness in translation were two sides of a coin, and one could not be separated from another.What distinguished Jin from others was that he strongly objected to then the popular idea that “faithfulness should be given priority over smoothness when one of them has to be sacrificed”.Jin mentioned more than once the close relationship between translation accuracy and target readers. He wrote:A translation should be smooth and natural so that target readers do not feel big gaps between the two languages concerned. Accuracy and smoothness as a translation standard are like two sides of a coin, one cannot be separated from the other. If the reader cannot understand the so-called “accurate” translation and do not know what it means, there is of little significance for such “accuracy”. If the translator only pays attention to smoothness in his work, but ignores the consistency between the original text and the translated text, his translation is not legitimate.4.1.3 Jin’s theory of equivalent effect and its relationship with Nida’s theoryIn On Translation: with special reference to Chinese and English, Jin basically adopted Nida‟s “dynamic equivalence”, which was defined in terms of a dynamic relationship, namely, “the relationship of target language receptors to the target language text should be roughly equivalent to the relationship between the original receptors and the original text”.The book mentioned above was acclaimed as “a masterpiece of combination of Nida‟s translation theory with Chinese translation with Chinese translation practice”.Jin argued that Nida‟s theory was intended to guide Bible translation for evangelism, and the ultimate purpose of Bible translating was to make receptors “response to the translated message in action”. Thus, according to Jin, the concept of “response”in Nida‟s theory was not suitable for a theory of general translation. Jinexplained:Although receptors’ response could be used as an important feedback to evaluate how the receptors understand and appreciate the translation to some extent, and the translator could test the quality of his translation according to receptor’s response, such activity occurs only after the translation is completed. Since each receptor’s response and reaction involve a number of subjective and objective personal factors, it is necessary for us to explore these factors in our study of translation process. Hence, in our discussion the term “effect” refers to the impact of the translated message upon the receptors instead of the receptors’ response. (This was the reason why Jin modified Nida’s “dynamic equivalence”, and put forward his o wn theory of “equivalent effect”.等效定义(方式一): the objective of an equivalent effect translation is that although the form of a translated text may be different from that of the original text, the receptor-language reader can obtain a message as substantially the same as the source-language reader does from the original, including main spirit, concrete facts and artistic imagery.分析: in Jin‟s view, only when the three essential factors (“main spirit, “concrete facts”and “artistic imagery”) of the original were successfully reproduced in the receptor language could a translation be termed as a translation of equivalent effect.In short, the delimitation of the concept of “effect”as “impact”instead of “response”, and the emphasis on the reproduction of the three factors constitute Jin‟s theory of “equivalent effect”.In his article, “Translating Spirit”, he borrowed two characters from Y an Fu‟s three-character translation principle and advanced his theory of “faithfulness, expressiveness and spirit” (信，达，神韵). The term “spirit” in Jin‟s theory was used in a broad sense, indicating various artistic styles of literary works.等效定义（方式二）：the three-character principle of “faithfulness, expressiveness and spirit”indicated that faithful representation of the fundamental facts, transference of effect and reproduction of artistic style respectively.In recent years Jin began to put more emphasis on the “reproduction of artistic style”, and tried to develop his theory of “equivalent effect” by making use of Chinese traditional translation theory and classic literary criticism.Jin‟s theory deviated away from Nida‟s theory because Nida‟s theory fails to adequately address the problem of transference of aesthetic values in literary translation; while Jin, having attempted to solve it, has to absorb Chinese traditional translation theory and classic literary criticism, where discussion about stylistic or aesthetic effects and their transference are abundant.4.2 Rethinking Nida’s dynamic equivalence4.2.1 The relationship between dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effectAs early as 1790, Tytler stated that a good translation was once in “which the merit of the original work is so completely transfused into another language, as to be distinctly apprehended, and strongly felt, by a native of the country to which thatlanguage belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original work”. Tytler was considered the first person who had discussed the issue of equivalent effect in the history of translation theory. But it was E.V. Rieu who first used the expression “the principle of equivalent effect” to discuss translation.Arnold stated that “A translation should affect us in the same way as the original may be supposed to have affected its first hearers”.Jowett expressed that “The translator seeks to produce on his reader an impression similar or nearly similar to that produced by the original”.The reason why Nida‟s theory is also called the principle of “equivalent effect” in the west is that: a translation which attempts to produce a dynamic rather than a formal equivalent is based upon “the principle of equivalent effect”. In such a translation one is not so concerned with matching the receptor-language message with the source-language message, but with the dynamic relationship, that the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message.4.2.2 The scientific basis of dynamic equivalence/functional equivalenceNida borrows the concept of the decoder‟s channel capacity from information theory to explain the acceptability of message by readers in both original communication and translation. And he proves that a dynamic equivalent translation fits the receptor‟s channel capacity so as to decode the translated text with ease and efficiency in his own cultural text.The term “dynamic”implies a scientific basis. The dynamic aspect is about a comparison of two relations, namely, “The relation of target language receptors to the target language text should be roughly equivalent to the relationship between the original receptors and the original text”. Such relationship indicates that translating is not completed unless the translated message is received by the reader in the receptor language in substantially the same manner as the original message is received by the original reader.When “dynamic equivalence”is replaced with “functional equivalence”in order to avoid misunderstandings about the term “dynamic”, Nida, having drawn upon the concept of isomorphs, further justifies “functional equivalence”. Isomorphs are an extension of the semiotic concept of “iconicity” or “matters of likeness”. Functional isomorphs are defined on the basis of the means for accomplishing essentially the same results within different systems.To sum up, “dynamic equivalence”/ “functional equivalence”is based on the principle of “equivalent effect”. What distinguished Nida‟s theory from other principle of equivalent effect was that it had a solid scientific basis, and Nida proved the legitimacy of his theory from insights coming from communication theory and sociosemiotics.4.2.3 The immediate concern of dynamic equivalenceNida further explained “dynamic equivalence”in a way that was directly relevant to Bible translating:It would be wrong to think, however, that the response of the receptors in the second language is merely in terms of comprehension of the information, forcommunication is not merely informative. It must also be expressive and imperative if it is to serve the principal purposes of communications such as those found in the Bible. That is to say, a translation of the Bible must not only provide information which people can understand but must present the message in such a way that people can feel its relevance and can then respond to it in action.4.3 Jin’s role in popularizing Nida’s theory4.3.1 Jin’s contribution to a better understanding of Nida’s theoryJin rightly commented on Nida‟s contribution to the principle of “equivalent effect”:The great contribution Eugene Nida made was to shift the focus the comparison texts, the source-language and the target-language texts, to a comparison of the two communication processes involved. As the message in a communication is carried by means of the text, the new method of comparison does not disregard the importance of the text, but the shift of focus implies the consideration of various linguistic and cultural complication that can affect the receptor s’perception of the message carried by the text.In Jin‟s view, Nida justified the principle of “equivalent effect”from the scientific perspective of information theory, and his “dynamic equivalence” solved the debate over literal translation and free translation among western translation scholars in the past two thousand years.In his writings on the principle of “equivalent effect”, Jin further elaborated on the three important concepts, namely, “receptor”, “effect”and “equivalence”in Nida‟s theory.The translator should take into consideration target readers in translating, for only keeping his readers in mind could he render the original text more satisfactorily into the receptor language.According to Jin, translation equivalence between two texts concerned was not a mechanical equivalence, but a comprehensive one, which required the translator to consider all the factors involved in translating. Translation equivalence was not word-for-word equivalence, but equivalence impacts upon the reader produced by a whole sentence or paragraph in any two languages concerned.He suggested that attempts should be made to narrow the differences so as to achieve the closest effect to the original text as much as possible.Jin‟s another contribution to Nida‟s theory is his attempt to put the theory of “equivalent effect” into his translation of Ylysses, and its success confirms that Nida‟s theory is applicable to literary translation between English and Chinese.4.3.2 Problems with some Jin’s views about Nida’s theoryFirst, Jin misinterprets Nida‟s “readers‟ response”.Second, he has a partial understanding of some aspects of “dynamic equivalence”/ “functional equivalence”.(1)Jin’s misinterpretation of the term “response” in Nida’s theoryThere are four translating procedures in Nida‟s theory, including (1) analysisof the source text, (2) transferring from source to target language, (3) restructuring in the target language, (4) testing the translated text with persons who represented the intended audience.According Nida, if “dynamic equivalence” was used as a translation criterion, the critic must take “readers‟ response” seriously. He explained:In the past most testing of a translation has been undertaken by assigning a bilingual person to compare the source and target texts and to determine the degree of correspondence. The problem with this approach is that the bilingual judge is probably already so familiar with the text and the type of contents that he can understand the text without too much trouble. An adequate evaluation of a translation can only be accomplished by testing the reaction of monolingual persons who are representative of the consistency for whom the translation has been made.It deserves to be mentioned that, in evaluating reader s‟ response to a translation, the critic was not to examine readers‟ response to the content of the original, but the “stylistically awkward, structurally burdensome, linguistically unnatural, and semantically misleading or incomprehensible” formal features.“Reader‟s response”in Nida‟s theory is really treated in a broad sense. Later on, when Nida replaced “dynamic equivalence”with “functional equivalence”, and redefined it at two levels: the minimal level and the maximal level, he avoided using the term “response”.(2) His misinterpretations concerning some aspects of dynamic equivalence/functional equivalenceIn Nida‟theory, a formal equivalent translation “permits the reader to identify himself as fully as possible with a person in the source-language context, and to understand as much as he can of the customs, manner of thought, and means of expression”.A dynamic equivalent translation “aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural pattern of the source-language context in order to comprehend the message”.In accordance with the principle of “dynamic equivalence”, in order to produce a dynamic equivalent translation, the most important thing for the translator was not to keep the original words, but to communicate effectively the original meaning, so that readers in the receptor language could understand the translation without any difficulty.As a matter of fact, “dynamic equivalence”was not solely built upon Bible translating. The basic translation principles in Nida‟s theory were developed considerably before his work with the Bible translators. In his early years of graduate work and doctoral study at university, he had objected to strict literal translation, and preferred an intelligible and stylistically appropriate translation. Later on, he elaborated his views on translation with examples from Biblical translations. It is a fact that Nida‟s theory is intended to guide Bible translations, but this does not mean that it is determined by Bible translating and only confined to Bible translation.4.4 Difference between Jin’s theory and Nida’s theory4.4.1 Reader-oriented vs. Text-oriented“Dynamic equivalence” pays more attention to the target reader s, while Jin‟s theory of “equivalent effect” attaches more importance to the original text.“Dynamic equivalence”is defined in terms of readers’response. For Nida, to measure “dynamic equivalence”, one should “only rightly compare the equivalence of response”.Jin‟s equivalent effect translation, however, requires reproduction of the “main spirit”, “concrete facts”, “artistic imagery”of the original text. Nida‟s focus on reader s‟ response allows necessary linguistic adjustments.To Yuen Ren Chao, the noted Chinese linguist, whether or not naturalizing translation was adopted should depend on the context. If a figure of speech was the main topic of a discourse (such as “the Lamb of God”in the biblical text), the translator should faithfully reproduce it into the receptor language. If it was used in a casual way, it should be replaced with an idiomatic equivalent in the receptor language.4.4.2 Flexible vs. InflexibleNida‟s “dynamic equivalence”is more flexible than Jin‟theory of “equivalent effect”.A dynamic equivalent translation tends to be a type of free translation, while Jin‟s equivalent effect translation tends to be a literal translation.In an interview Jin himself admitted that his translation was not so flexible as Nida‟s dynamic equivalent translation. He said:The translator is not required to adhere closely to the original text. This is because his theory is to guide Bible translation, and his translation purpose is to make people believe in Christianity. So Nida holds that the most important thing in translating is not word or content, but “receptors’response”, namely, their belief in Christianity. In my opinion, such a view is not suitable for literary translation. What I strive for is “effect”---the impact of the translation upon its readers is similar to the impact of the original text upon its readers.In Jin‟s view, a literary translation must adhere closely to the original text. As long as the three factors of the original text are faithfully reproduced, an equivalent effect can be achieved.4.4.3 Ideal objective vs. realistic goalJin‟s translation objective is ideal while Nida‟s dynamic equivalence is far more than an ideal goal.Jin stated that an equivalent effect translation was “an ideal objective”. Though there was no perfect translation, it was desirable for a serious translator to work at it.He even summarized that “the theory of …equivalent effect‟was an attempt to define the ideal of the non-existent perfect translation and to explore the approach to approximating it in practice.Nida‟s attitudes toward “dynamic equivalence”/ “functional equivalence”were different from phase to phase.(1) In phase one (1959-1964), Nida simply described the features of two basictranslation equivalences and did not point out which was better.Between strict formal equivalence and complete dynamic equivalence, there were “a number of intervening grades, representing various acceptable standards of literary translating”. There were also “varying degrees” of dynamic equivalent translations.A D-E translation did not mean that the more a translation approached the original text, the better it was.If a D-E translation went to extremes, the very freedom of form tended to distort the original message as well.(2) In phase two (1969-1984), Nida discussed “dynamic equivalence”in opposition to “formal correspondence”. During this period, he suggested that “dynamic equivalence”was a good translation, in which the form was restructured to preserve the same meaning, whereas “formal correspondence” and “paraphrase” were bad translation.One can justify two different types of dynamic equivalent translation designed primarily for two rather different purposes. It is safe for us to say that dynamic equivalent translations are not those that are closest to the original text in lexicon and grammar. Rather, depending on the readers for whom the translation is made, there is more than one dynamic equivalent translation.(3)At phase three (1984- ), “functional equivalence” was divided into two levelsof equivalence: the maximal level and the minimal level.The maximal level was an ideal. He claimed that this maximal level of equivalence was “rarely if ever, achieved, except for text having little or no aesthetic value and involving only routine information”. So it was impossible to attain such an objective in literary translation.In brief, a functional equivalent translation was not an ideal goal that the translator must pursue in their work. Rather, it had “different degrees of adequacy”from minimal to maximal level and a good translation always lay somewhere in between the two levels.4.4.4 Reasons for the differences between Jin’s theory and Nida’s theroyThere are mainly two reasons for the differences between Jin‟s theory and Nida‟s theory: (1) Jin‟s theory is, to some extent, very much influenced by traditional Chinese translation theories. (2) Nida‟s theory fails to address the issue of transference of aesthetic elements.(1) Before Jin accepted Nida‟s theory in the late 1970s, he had formed his own views about translation, and taken the combination of “accuracy and smoothness” as the standard of a good translation.The translator‟s objective is to accurately reproduce the content and feeling of the original text in an idiomatic language, but in actual translating it is hard to accomplish it.After he had contact with Nida‟s theory, he tried to find the way out of it from the standpoint of readers and communication theory. He wrote:Accuracy and smoothness in translating are inseparable from target readers. Translating is communicating across two languages. An accurate translation indicates that the message the target reader obtains from the translated text should besubstantially the same as the message the original reader has acquired from the original text. A smooth translation indicates that the target reader can understand the translation and receive the translated message without any difficulty.After Jin advanced his own theory of “equivalent effect” in the 1980s, he was not totally free from the bondage of his former translation standard of “accuracy and smoothness”. He held that an equivalent effect translation was to preserve “accuracy and smoothness” at the same time. This explained why he emphasized the importance of transference of “concrete facts” in his definition of equivalent effect translation.In 1990s, Jin‟s dependence upon Chinese traditional translation theory was more conspicuous. In his article "Translating Spirit", Jin put forward his translation principle of "faithfulness, expressiveness and spirit". He held that to accomplish an equivalent effect translation, the translator should "make the translated text similar to the original text in terms of "faithfulness,expressiveness and spirit".(2) Another reason for the discrepancy between the two theories is the limitations of Nida's theory. "Dynamic equivalence" is not restricted to Bible translation, but it has some limitations in guiding literary translation. This is simply because Nida's immediate concern is to about literary translation, hence it fails to address the transference of formal structures possessing stylistic values and aesthetic effects.Jin Yuelin also states:" Translating sense, which only requires expressiveness and faithfulness, is not an easy thing, and in some cases it is very difficult. Nevertheless,the difficulty is only a technical problem. Translating flavor, however, is quite another matter, for it requires recreation in translating".In Nida's theory ranslating means translating meaning, and his exploration of style or spirit in very inadequate for literary translation. When Jin translated Joyce's Ulysses, he had to face the problem of spirit transference. This is the reason why Jin eventually turns to Chinese traditional theory and classic literary criticism to seek for support for his theory of "equivalent effect".4.5 Comment on Jin's Chinese version of UlyssesIn spite of differences between Jin's theory and Nida's theory, the two theories are essentially the same. In fact, their discrepancies are only a matter of degree rather than a matter of nature.As Jin stated in the translator's note to his Chinese version of Ulysses, his translation objective was "to reproduce the original text as faithfully as possible so that the effect of this Chinese version upon its readers was similar to that of the English text upon its readers".4.5.1 Successful representation of Stream of ConsciousnessUlysses challenges the translator, because Joyce has used extensively "stream of consciousness" throughout his novel, recording the multifarious thoughts and feeling of characters without regard to logical argument or narrative sequence.4.5.2 Successful representation of normal narrativesAlthough Ulysses is distinguished for its unique technique of stream of consciousness, Joyce never hesitates to adopt normal narratives to describe what his characters hear, see and feel.4.5.3 Problems in Jin's Chinese version of Ulysses(1)Some expressions in Jin's rendering are not idiomatic Chinese(2)In handling stream of consciousness, Jin sometimes tends to adhere too closely to the original, with the result that some of his renderings fail to achieve his objective of "equivalent effect".(3)Another major problem with Jin's version lies in his handling of allusions. Allusions are references to well-know persons, things, or events. A writer usually employs allusions on the assumption that his readers share with him a common historical, cultural and literary heritage. When translating allusions, the translator has to face the fact that common readers in the target language may not be familiar with the allusions in another language and culture.Most allusions are not satisfactorily rendered in his version.In short, there are three major problems with Jin's version: (1) less idiomatic language expressions and comparatively awkward styly in some passages, (2) failure to make implicit information explicit in handling some passages of stream of consciousness, (3) literal rendering of most allusion.I think if Jin takes into full consideration average Chinese readers, or follows Nida's "dynamic equivalence" throughout his translating, these problem could have been easily solved.4.5.4 Implications of Jin's translation practice for the applicability of Nida's theory to literary translationJin says that there are three kinds of loyalty in translating:(1)The first is the loyalty to the original text, where the translator adheres closely to the word and sentence structure of the original text and is willing to sacrifice the artistic qualities of the target language for this objective.(2) The second is the loyalty to the target language, where the translator seeks to produce an artistically satisfying text in the target language in accordance with his own artistic standard regardless of the content in the original text.(3) The third is the loyalty to both the writer and the reader, which he upholds.However, sometimes Jin tends to be loyal to the writer and the text, and forgets his intended readers. The unsteadiness in Jin's translation is due to the following factors: 1) Jin does not take into full consideration the average Chinese reader throughout his translation of Ulysses, 2) He has wrongly estimated the intended reader of his version.If Jin follows Nida's theory throughout his translating, he will pay more attention to the acceptability of his readers.If Jin takes a more liberal attitude towards the reproduction of cultural-specific elements in handling allusions and avoids some "translationese" expression, I believe he will more satisfactorily attain his translation objective of "equivalent effect" in his work.Jin's translation of Ulysses convinces us that Nida's theory is applicable to literary translation between Chinese and English though it has some limitations about how to represent the aesthetic values of the original text into another language.。
Application of Relevance theory to translation
Application of Relevance theory to translation [Abstract] Within the framework of relevance theory，translation is regarded as a relevance-seeking communication. It involves three participant relationships：the source speaker，the translator and the target hearers. The translator is supposed to create a context that the target hearer can infer the intention of the source speaker. Comparing translation theories which fail to pay attention to the relevance between the source speakers and the target hearers，Relevance Theory is a relatively overall account of translation. For one thing，some points concerning the Relevance Theory are capable of facilitating the researches to the present translation field. For another，the information of the original text will be understood and comprehended accurately and promptly on the basis of the relevant theory.[Key words] Relevance Theory；translation；pragmatic theoryInitially，Sperber and Wilson put forward Relevance Theory in 1986. It is a totally new approach to pragmatics，which not only explains the nature of communication，but also the interpretation process takes place in hearer’s thought. Five years later，Ernst August Gutt advocated combining Relevance Theory with translation. He put forward his own theory which regards translation as an interlingual interpretive process. Later，he perfectly worked out the publication Relevance Translation Theory in Translation and Relevance：Cognitive and Context. Within the framework of Relevance Theory，an individual’s specific cognitive target is always to maximize the relevance of the information in communicative interaction. The behavior which makes manifests clear is called ostensive behavior or ostension. Ostension provides two layers of information to be noticed：the first layer is the information that has been referred to；the second layer is the information that the first layer of information has been intentionally made manifest. If a kind of behavior is conducted ostensively，then the proof will have direct relationship with the individual’s intention，and only indirect relationship with the primary layer of information. Ostensive communication and inferential communication are actually the same process，but seen from diverse viewpoints：the speaker takes place in ostensive communication and the hearer is involved in inferential communication.In order to figure out what sense humans share information，and to what extent they share information，Sperber and Wilson presented the concept of cognitive environment. An individual’s entire cognitive environment consists of the physical environment and the cognitive competence. As long as the cognitive environment provides adequate evidence for assumption adoption，any assumption may be manifest to an individual. According to the notion of “manifest”，all facts in one’s cognitive environment can be distinguished and comprehended by him. People share a common cognitive environment does not mean that they make the same assumption. It only implies that they are capable of doing so. In a mutual cognitive environment，for every manifest assumption，the fact that it is manifest to the people is itself. In other words，in a mutual cognitive environment，every manifest assumption is what we will call mutually manifest. It means that mutual manifestness refers to a set of facts or topics that are comprehended or shared by both parties in communicative interaction. When it comes to the audience，he is supposed to use the representative and contextual information to discern the communicator’s intentions. Ultimately，their mutual cognitive environment is enlarged as a result of smooth communication.。
英语翻译论文题目
On Translation of English Neologism浅谈英语新词的译名
Chinese Translation Skills of English Business News英语经济新闻汉译技巧
An Analysis of Common Errors and the Standard Translation of Office Signs办公室标示语翻译中常见错误的分析及翻译规范
A Comparative Study of the Two English Versions of Teahouse《茶馆》两个英译本的比较研究
A Review of the Cultural Differences Between China and America -Based on the Comparison of Obama and Hu Jintao's Speeches从奥巴马与胡锦涛的演说审视中美文化差异
A Comparative Study of the Two Chinese Versions ofThe Art of Life《生活的艺术》两个汉译本的比较研究
On the Contextual Adaptation Theory Embedded in Film Title Translation
关于语境适应论在电影片名翻译中的嵌入
A Study on English Translation of Chinese Idioms from a Memetic Perspective模音论视角下汉语习语英译探究
On E-C Translation of Brand Names from Perspective of Functional Equivalence从功能对等理论看英文商标的汉译
目的论视角下的旅游翻译分析
目的论视角下的旅游翻译分析旅游翻译是一种在不同的语言和社会心理特征下的跨文化交流。
本文以Hans Vermeer的目的论为指导，从目的论的三个原则出发，以宁波旅游翻译为具体文本，简要探讨旅游翻译的一些策略，以期更好地实现旅游文本的功能。
标签：目的论旅游翻译翻译原则一、引言在经济全球化趋势下，世界各国之间的经济、政治和文化交流越来越频繁，旅游也成为文化交流的一种重要载体。
中国的旅游业正日新月异地蓬勃发展着，旅游资料包含了丰富的文化背景。
本文将从目的论视角，结合宁波旅游翻译实例，探讨如何运用正确的翻译策略，达到传递信息、加强交流的目的。
二、目的论简介20世纪70年代，功能派翻译理论兴起于德国。
最初，凯瑟琳娜·莱斯（Katharina Reise）把“功能”范畴引入翻译批评，提出了功能派理论思想的雏形。
莱斯以等值理论为基础，提出理想的翻译应该使译文和原文在概念内容(conceptual content)、语言形式(linguistic form)和交际功能(communication function)上实现对等。
莱斯的功能翻译论是以原文为中心的。
莱斯的学生汉斯·弗米尔（Hans Vermeer）将翻译研究从原文中心论的束缚中解放出来，于1978年出版了《普通翻译理论框架》（Framework for a General Translation Theory），成为目的论（Skopos Theory）的基础。
1984年，弗米尔和莱斯撰写了《翻译理论基础概述》，翻译目的论成型。
目的论认为翻译是以原文为基础的有目的和有结果的行为，这一行为必须经过协商来完成，翻译必须遵循一系列法则，其中目的法则居首位。
翻译目的论的中心思想是，行为皆有目的，行为者参照实际环境选择一种他认为最合适的方式，以求达到预期目标。
既然翻译也是一种行为，所以译者也会在翻译目的的指引下，尽量考虑一切可能有关的因素，从而决定最合适的行为方式，译文应对预定的受话者发挥预期的功能（Vermeer，1989）。
霍恩比-翻译研究-综合法 课件 研究生课程
A 文学翻译 普通语言翻译 特殊语言翻 译 Level A presents the conventional area of translation which up to now have been kept all too separate: on the left literary translation, traditionally province of poets and schlors and once the only area thought worthy of the theorist, and on the right special language translation,traditionally inferior and the main concern of the translation schools."Geneal languange translation"is still a vague concept which up to now has only been negatively defined as "not literary"and "not technical".
通过对莱比锡学派理论的考察斯奈尔霍恩比发现这些理论过于强调语言因素在翻译中的作用其研究的视角较为狭窄因而无法满足翻译研究的需要
Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach
Mary Snell-Hornby
张尚宇 S1100024
玛丽·斯奈尔-霍恩比 简介
玛丽·斯奈尔-霍恩比(Mary Snell-Hornby) 是一位国 际知名的翻译研究学者及第二语言教学专家。 1940年出生，之后在圣·安德鲁大学学习德语，先后 获得学士和硕士学位。毕业后在德国多所大学任教多年。 20世纪80年代初进入苏黎世大学攻读博士学位，毕业 论文即为1988年出版，并在国际译坛引起强烈反响的《翻 译研究：综合法》。
相关翻译理论和翻译技巧
相关翻译理论和翻译技巧相关翻译理论和翻译技巧3、1 相关翻译理论3、1、1翻译转换理论翻译转换（translation shift）是翻译中的普遍现象，指的是原文译为目的语时发生的语言变化。
“翻译转换”作为术语最早出现在英国学者卡特福德（Catford）的《翻译的语言学理论》中，他认为翻译转换是“偏离形式对等的等值翻译”，并将将翻译定义为:“一种语言(SL)中的语篇材料被另一种语言( TL)中等值的语篇材料所取代。
”卡特福德的翻译转换理论是建立在弗斯和韩礼德的语言学模式之上，并借用了韩礼德的系统语法及其对语言“层次”的分类来说明翻译转换现象。
卡特福德的转换理论主要使用了语法和词汇两个层次，单位、结构、类别和系统四个语法范畴。
卡特福德认为，语言是交际性的，在上下文中发挥功能，而且这些功能的发挥通过不同的语言层次( 如语音、词形、语法及词汇) 和级阶( 句子、分句、片语、词及词素等)。
在对“形式对应”( formal correspondence)和“文本等值”( textual equivalence)做了区分后，卡特福德认为，既然这两个概念有很大差异，进行翻译转换就是必然的了，翻译转换因而在从源语到目标语的过程中背离了形式对应。
卡特福德进而提出两种转换: 层次转( level shifts)和范畴转换( category shifts)。
卡特福德翻译转换理论对汉英翻译有很强的指导意义。
1、层次转换所谓层次转换是指处于一种语言层次上的原语单位，具有处于不同语言层次上的译语翻译等值成分。
卡特福德的层次转换包括语音、词形、语法和词汇四个层面，但他认为翻译中惟一可能发生的层次转换就是语法和词汇之间的转移。
也就是说，一种语言的语法项在翻译时可以转换成另一种语言的词汇项，反之亦然。
例如，汉语中的“着”、“了”、“过”等词汇都可以用来英语中的“现在完成时( has/ have done)”和“过去完成时( had done)” 这两种时态表达。
- 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)。
Journal of Translation, Volume 2, Number 2 (2006) 43 A Relevance Theory Perspective on Translating the Implicit Information in Literary Texts
Sang Zhonggang Sang Zhonggang, a translation teacher in Tianshui Normal University, began his research into translation in the City of Lanzhou in China. He holds a B.A. in Applied Linguistics from Northwest Normal University of China, and an M.A. in translation studies from Lanzhou University. Sang has published a number of articles on translation both in China and in Hong Kong. Recently he has been doing research on the cognitive and pragmatic study of literary translation.
Abstract As one type of cross-cultural communication, the literary translation is more difficult for the translator as he has to deal with a large chunk of implicit information. The implicit information has as its characteristics, such as graded communicability, context-dependence, the correlation among the implicit information, text and context, etc. These characteristics restrict the communicability of the literary texts in another context, so the translator of the literary texts often finds more difficulties in translating. Encouraged by Gutt’s theory and his recent findings, this article adopts a relevance theory approach and attempts to present a cognitive study of the implicit information in literary texts. It experiments with building an explanatory framework for translating the implicit information in literary texts. The framework is based on a new notion: translation is clues-based interpretive use of language across language boundaries.
1. Introduction Literary works, which are written texts, are characterized by “careful use of language, being written in a literary genre (poetry, prose fiction, or drama), being read aesthetically, and containing many weak implicatures” (Meyer 1997: 24). The weak implicatures are the implicit information in the literary texts. On the one hand, owing to the implicit information in the literary texts, the author of the source text often becomes more capable of communicating a richness of ideas, feelings and impressions that are not necessarily expressed in words. Meanwhile, by the implicit information, the author endows the literary texts with their unique density, as the texts rich in implicit information usually cost the reader more conceptual effort to process them. On the other hand, due to the unique density of the literary texts and the way in which the implicit information is conveyed, the translator of the literary text often finds more difficulties in translating the implicit information of the source texts.
Seeing the above factors related to the literary translation, and on the basis of Gutt’s relevance theory framework of translation and his recent studies, this article attempts to build an explanatory framework for translating the implicit information in literary texts. It also aims at providing a natural basis for an account of evaluation and decision-making.
This framework seems to be an innovative one, as little research into translating the implicit information in literary texts has been undertaken ever since Gutt’s study (1996). More importantly, the framework can give an explicit account of translating the implicit information in literary texts when the linguistic and contextual differences get in the way of translation. After an intensive study, the article comes up with a new notion of translation, that is, “translation is clues-based interpretive use of language across language boundaries.” Some basic concepts in relevance theory such as “the degree of relevance” and “contextual effect” are adequately defined in the article. 44 Journal of Translation, Volume 2, Number 2 (2006) 2. Relevance theory In exploring relevance theory, as well as Gutt, Zhao Yanchun and Li Yin’s frameworks, this article aims at building an explanatory framework for translating the implicit information in literary texts. This section focuses on a review of relevance theory and the three frameworks.
2.1 Key concepts in relevance theory 2.1.1 Context in relevance theory Within the relevance theory framework, the notion of “context” is of central importance. According to Sperber and Wilson (1986), the context of an utterance is “the set of premises used in interpreting [it]” (p. 15). So it is a psychological notion: “A context is the psychological construct, a subset of the hearer’s assumptions about the world” (p. 15).