Translation theories 2009
Reading Report On Contemporary Translation Theories
Reading Report On Contemporary Translation TheoriesI am so happy that I have finished reading a wonderful and useful book—Contemporary Translation Theories (Edwin Gentzler). The following is my reading report.Since the mid-19th century, translation theory has made great progress. Gentzler digs what is useful and rejects what is useless on the translation of today's complex theories, and describes in detail several major schools of translation –The North American Translation Workshop, the “science”of Translation, Early Translation Studies, polysystem Translation and Deconstruction. These theories originated in the mid 60s of the 20th century until today have had a broad impact. The author discusses the book's strengths and weaknesses of various schools to study all the internal relations among different schools of thought, described the translation of theory on the importance of today's cultural studies, and Translation of today's major assumptions made questioned. The second edition of this book updated the view of each school, added to the latest findings. In the conclusion part, the author predicted the future direction of translation studies.The translation theories examined thus far all depend upon some notion of equivalence: the same aesthetic experience (Chapter 2), linguistic structural/dynamic equivalence (Chapter 3), corresponding literary function (Chapter 4), or similar formal correlation governed by social acceptability in the target culture (Chapter 5). Despite differing approaches, each theory is unified by a conceptual framework that assumes original presence and a representation of it in the receiving society. Even-Zohar and Touty tried to escape the epistemological strait-jacket that the power of the original text retains over the translation by reviewing the problem of translation in terms of the actual product rather than the ideal of a “faithful”version, but in the end they found it difficult to escape limitations imposed by their Formalist roots, scientific approach, and dualistic epistemological assumptions. The question remains whether it is possible to think about translational phenomena in other than traditionalterms. To date, all translation theories have made rigid distinctions between original texts and their translations, distinctions that determine subsequent claims about the nature of translation.Deconstruction challenges limits of language, writing, and reading by pointing out how the definitions of the very terms used to discuss concepts set boundaries for the specific theories they describe. While not offering a specific “translation theory”of its own, deconstruction, however does “use”translation often both to raise questions regarding the nature of language and “being-in-language”as well as to suggest that in the process of translating texts, one can come as close as is possible to that elusive notion or experience of difference, which “underlies”their approach. Such thinking about the nature of translation and the nature of language, thus, becomes important to translation theorists, not because it necessarily defines another approach, but because it deepens and broadens the conceptual framework by which we define the very field itself.In “What is an Author?”Foucault quotes Samuel Beckett as posing the Nietzschean question “What matter who’s speaking?”man as well as God has disappeared into the evolution of language writing itself. The fundamental question of the Modern Age, according to Foucault, is no longer how one accumulates knowledge to become an authority and pass judgment on the world, but one of how we can think that which we cannot think. Although Foucault makes no predictions as to what the answers to his own questions are, he does point us in a direction: toward a reflection on that which is silent, an illumination of that which is dark, and a restoration to language of that which has been mute. This “Other”has not been, nor can it be, illuminated in the sense of a positive knowledge, but rather as a blind spot or dark region which accompanies conscious thought. He conceives of the “Other”as man’s double because it has, “like a shadow,”accompanied man “mutely and uninterruptedly”since the nineteenth century (Foucault, 1973: 326-7). Deconstruction thus shifts the nature of the questions being asked about a literary work and its meaning from the audible to the mute. The author’s creative role is reduced and new questions are raised about where the discourse of any particular text comes from, ifnot the author. Most importantly, the “meaning”of a text is reconsidered, and silent elements are returned to the language of a text, visible in contradictions, gaps, and omissions. In addition (im)possible meanings are returned to words, meanings that always accompanied them, but were covered up by the nature of the evolution of the discourse in Western culture in general, and the eighteenth century in particular. Thus, in practice, deconstructionists tend to exhibit a great indifference to authors and explicit meanings and instead tune into the language speaking itself, listening for the unheard, the ungraspable-that which is there and yet is not there, lost in that space between and the signifier.Heidegger’s translation theory is not all unlike early translation studies. He does assume that translations are conditioned by the conceptual categories governing any given epoch, despite attempts to circumvent them. He also believes that with study and historical recontextualizing, one can come to some sort of conclusion as to what the author’s intent was and thus uncover layers of obfuscation in order to arrive at some sort of originary intent or presence before its distortion. He then chooses words that defamiliarize, which function differently in today’s society, to try to achieve the same effect or response that the original version evoked, in the process breaking down the conceptual categories of his reader.Derrida’s main theoretical point seems to be that there is no pure meaning, no thing to be presented behind language, nothing to be represented. Therein lies the radicality of the deconstructionist project. Similar to the formalist position, what does exist, according to deconstructionists, is a continuous chain of signification comprised of languages in a constant state of interplay, mutually supplementing each other. Yet in addition to such a continuous chain, the Formalists tend to posit unified works of art as a goal within the system, a very fragile assumption, according to Derrida.Andrew Benjamin does not agree with Derrida, nor with de Man, and instead finds a way out of the labyrinth via Donald Davidson. In a very discussion of Davidson’s paper “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme”(1984), which studies translation as a way of focusing on criteria of identity for conceptual schemes,Andrew Benjamin argues that mutual understanding is “almost inescapable.”A complex series of interconnected preconditions precedes the process of expressing equivalent “things”in another language. Davidson’s approach thus mediates between the untouchable original and a movement of language that is intelligible, or at least indicates those “objects”that stand in relation to the source and target text and make communication possible. At this point, Andrew Benjamin discusses Walter Benjamin’s “The Task of the Translator.”he agrees with de Man’s reading that the fragment of a broken vessel do not presuppose an initial vessel, i.e., that original language is always already displaced language, and that therefore no original language exists. He then asks, however, how are we to understand the futural vessel and what are the conditions that implicitly causes us to think in terms of the “belonging together”of the fragments and thereby the “belonging together”of languages. Andrew Benjamin and other post-Enlightenment philosophers think not about the abyss, not about the pre-ontological conditions, but about the theoretical conditions that allow for interpretation and mutual understanding, which Andrew Benjamin calls ontological-temporal conditions. They seek to identify and describe the elements that allow for affirmative thinking about semantic and interpretive potential that are inherent in words; and they argue that one can think about translation without an origin to be or not to be retrieved. Meanings and interpretations emerge out of real conditions-they are actual as well as conflictual –and can be positively and empirically described. Andrew Benjamin argues,“Emergent meaning is the actualization of the potential for meaning and not the emergence out of non-meaning”（A. Benjamin, 1989:180）. In contrast to de Man and Derrida, he argues that there is never pure difference, but that difference always has a specificity. Walter Benjamin, argues Andrew Benjamin, located “after –life,” sur-vival, by locating the potential for afterlife with the text itself. Words incorporate a site of conflict, a site of unending afterlife, which defers an end or a definitive interpretation. Interpreting Walter Benjamin’s text against the grain of fashionable deconstruction readings, Andrew Benjamin argues that in Walter Benjamin, “the possibility of a different understanding of translation and philosophy is beginning to take place” (A. Benjamin,1989:108).The aim of this book has been to break down misconceptions about competing viewpoints and to open further the door for new, alternative approaches for translation. He feels as if the first edition of this book helped provide openings for some of the work that has emerged in the field in the last decade. The deconstruction of the authorities governing translation, literary criticism, and culture in general, was merely a first step. Much work still needs to be done. Although contemporary translation theory has evolved a long way since its beginnings, it now stands on the threshold of a very exciting new phase, one which can begin to unpack the relations in which meaning is constituted, and thus better inform our postmodern conception of language, literary discourse, and identity.My understanding to the theory of deconstruction is the following. "Survival of the original through translation," "equality of translation and the original" are the points of view of deconstruction, which fundamentally improve the status of translators and translation. Deconstruction denied Western Europe and America-centrism centrism or point of view, to promote the parallel relationship between national culture and language.But the deconstruction about the uncertainty of the meaning and translation and the original relations without the similarity lead to the other extreme, which may have a negative impact on the practice of translation. The denial of the original authority and creativity is also an extreme point of view. They pronounced the death of the author and original, is the denial of their own, denied all the literature. Because human cultural heritage is the accumulation of ancient literature, including some of intertextuality, more creative part of it; but also asked some really creative, but creativity is a text-based, ignoring the translation and the difference between the original and translation, indeed, deny the translation itself.。
Schools of translation theories
现代西方翻译理论与翻译学派二战后，科技、语言学和翻译事业蓬勃发展，机器翻译也悄然兴起。
人们对翻译的看法也随之而改变。
翻译不仅是一门艺术或技巧，而且是一门科学，与文艺学、社会学、心理学、数控论和信息论等多种学科相关但又自成体系的科学。
翻译理论的研究，也不再局限于哲学家、文学家和翻译家，而成为语言和翻译研究专家进行系统探讨的严肃课题。
因此，西方的翻译理论得到进一步发展。
现代西方翻译理论的发展有两大特点：（1）理论研究纳入语言学范畴，受现代语言学和信息理论的影响，因而带有明显的语言学色彩，与传统的文学翻译理论形成鲜明对照；（2）以往理论家闭门造车、不相往来的局面被打破。
理论家通过论著、杂志、论文集等方式，充分发表各自的观点。
此外，由于交通手段、出版业的进步以及国际学术组织的出现，各国翻译理论家之间的交往不断密切，学术交流日益加强。
现代西方的翻译理论主要有四大学派：布拉格派、伦敦派、美国结构派和交际理论派。
一、布拉格学派该学派的创始人为马希修斯（Vilem Mathesius）、特鲁贝斯科伊（Nikolay S. Trubetskoy）和雅可布森（Roman Jakobson）。
主要成员有雅可布森、列维、维内等重要的翻译理论家。
这一学派的主要论点为：（１）翻译必须考虑语言的各种功能，包括认识功能、表达功能和工具功能等；（２）翻译必须重视语言的比较，包括语义、语法、语音、语言风格以及文学体裁的比较。
布拉格学派最有影响的翻译理论家是罗曼·雅可布森。
他原籍俄国，后移居捷克；二战时迁至美国，加入美籍。
作为学派的创始人之一，他对翻译理论的贡献主要体现在《论翻译的语言学问题》（On Linguistic Aspects of Translation）之中。
文章从语言学的角度，对翻译的重要性、语言和翻译的关系以及存在的问题给出精辟的论述。
自１９５９年发表后，此文一直被西方理论界奉为翻译研究的经典之一。
雅可布森的论述主要有五点：（１）翻译分为三类：语内翻译（intralingual translation）、语际翻译（interlingual translation）和符际翻译（intersemiotic translation）。
考研英语2009年 TEXT1 翻译
Habits are a funny thing. We reach for them mindlessly, setting our brains on auto-pilot and relaxing into the unconscious comfort of familiar routine. “Not choice, but habit rules the unreflecting herd,” William Wordsworth said in the 19th century. In the ever-changing 21st century, even the word “habit” carries a negative connotation.习惯是件有趣的事情。
我们无意识间养成了一些习惯，我们的大脑是自动运转的，轻松进入熟知套路所带来的不自觉舒适状态。
“这并非选择，而是习惯控制了那些没有思想的人”，这是威廉·华兹华斯（William Wordsworth）19世纪时说的话。
在现在这个日新月异的21世纪，甚至习惯这个词本身也带有负面涵义。
So it seems paradoxical to talk about habits in the same context as creativity and innovation. But brain researchers have discovered that when we consciously develop new habits, we create parallel paths, and even entirely new brain cells, that can jump our trains of thought onto new, innovative tracks.因此，在创造和革新的背景下来谈论习惯，似乎显得有点矛盾。
Theo Hermans 翻译、伦理与政治(2009)
TRANSLATION, ETHICS, POLITICSTHEO HERMANS[In Munday, Jeremy.(ed.)The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies Routledge Companions. Routledge,2009, pp. 93-105]6.0 INTRODUCTIONIn his opening address to the post-apartheid South African parliament in 1994, President Nelson Mandela said that a word like ‘kaffir’ should no longer be part of our vocabulary. Its use was subsequently outlawed in South Africa. Imagine you are asked to translate, for publication in that country, an historical document from the pre-apartheid era which contains the word. Should you write it, gloss it, omit it or replace it with something else –and if so, with what, with another derogatory word or some blander superordinate term? Are you not duty-bound to respect the authenticity of the historical record? Would you have any qualms about using the word if the translation was meant for publication outside South Africa?In Germany and Austria, denying the Holocaust is forbidden by law. In November 1991, in Germany, Günter Deckert provided a simultaneous German interpretation of a lecture in which the American Frederic Leuchter denied the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz. Deckert was taken to court and eventually convicted. Was this morally right? Was Deckert not merely relaying i nto German someone else’s words, without having to assume responsibility for them? Is it relevant that Deckert is a well-known neo-Nazi, and that he expressed agreement with Leuchter’s claims? If Deckert’s conviction was morally justified, should we not al so accept that Muslims who agreed with Ayatollah Khomeiny’s 1989 fatwa against Salman Rushdie were right to regard the translators of The Satanic Verses as guilty of blasphemy too?The examples (from Kruger 1997 and Pym 1997) are real enough, and they involve, apart from legal issues, moral and political choices that translators and interpreters make. While translators and interpreters have always had to make such choices, sustained reflection about this aspect of their work is of relatively recent date. It has come as a result of growing interest in such things asthe political and ideological role of translation, the figure of the translator as a mediator, and various disciplinary agendas that have injected their particular concerns into translation studies.Making choices presupposes first the possibility of choice, and then agency, values and accountability. Traditional work on translation was not particularly interested in these issues. It tended to focus on textual matters, primarily the relation between a translation and its original, or was of the applied kind, concerned with training and practical criticism, more often than not within a linguistic or a literary framework. A broadening of the perspective became noticeable from roughly the 1980s onwards. It resulted in the contextualization of translation, prompted a reconsideration of the translator as a social and ethical agent, and eventually led to a self-reflexive turn in translation studies.To get an idea of the kind of change that is involved, a quick look at interpreting will help. Early studies were almost exclusively concerned with cognitive aspects of conference interpreting, investigating such things as interpreters’ information processing ability and memory capacity (Pöchhacker and Shlesinger 2002; see also this volume, Chapter 8). However, a study of the Iraqi interpreter’s behaviour in the highly charged atmosphere of Saddam Hussein being interviewed by a British television journalist on the eve of the 1991 Gulf War showed very different constraints at work; they were directly related to questions of power and control, as Saddam repeatedly corrected a desperately nervous interpreter (Baker 1997). Over the last ten years or so interpreting studies have been transformed by the growing importance of community interpreting, which, in contrast to conference interpreting, usually takes place in informal settings and sometimes in an atmosphere of suspicion, and is often emotionally charged. As a rule, these exchanges involve stark power differentials, with on one side an establishment figure, say a customs official, a police officer or a doctor, and on the other a migrant worker or an asylum seeker, perhaps illiterate and probably unused to the format of an interpreted interview. The interpreter in such an exchange may well be untrained, and have personal, ideological or ethnic loyalties. Situations like these cannot be understood by looking at technicalities only; they require full contextualization and an appreciation of the stakes involved.6.1 DECISIONS, DECISIONSTo put developments like these into perspective, we should recall the functionalist and descriptive approaches that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. If traditional translation criticism rarely went beyond pronouncing judgement on the quality of a particular version, functionalist studies (Nord 1997) pursued questions such as who commissioned a translation or what purpose the translated text was meant to serve in its new environment (see Chapter 3). Descriptivism (Hermans 1985, 1999; Lambert 2006; Lefevere 1992; Toury 1995) worked along similar lines but showed an interest in historical poetics and in the role of (especially literary) translation in particular periods. Within the descriptive paradigm, André Lefevere, in particular, went further and began to explore the embedding of translations in social and ideological as well as cultural contexts. His keyword was ‘patronage’, which he understood in a broad sense as any person or institution able to exert significant control over the translat or’s work. Since patrons were generally driven by larger economic or political rather than by purely cultural concerns, Lefevere claimed that what determined translation was firstly ideology and then poetics, with language coming in third place only.In th is vein he studied the ideological, generic and textual ‘grids’, as he called them, that shaped, for instance, nineteenth-century English translations of Virgil. Individual translators could differentiate themselves from their colleagues and predecessors by manipulating these grids and, if they did so successfully, acquire cultural prestige or, with a term derived from Pierre Bourdieu, symbolic capital (Bassnett and Lefevere 1998:41–56).More recent studies have taken this line a step further and show, for example, how translation from Latin and Greek in Victorian Britain, the use of classical allusions in novels of the period, and even debates concerning metrical translation of ancient verse, contributed to class-consciousness and the idea of a national culture (Osborne 2001; Prins 2005). Still in the Victorian era, translators contributed substantially to the definition of the modern concept of democracy (Lianeri 2002).Lefevere’s early work had been steeped in literary criticism but he ended up delving int o questions of patronage and ideology. The trajectory is in many ways symptomatic for the field as a whole. The collection Translation, History and Culture, edited by Susan Bassnett and Lefevere in 1990, confirmed the extent to which translation was now approached from a cultural studies angle. Itcontained postcolonial and feminist chapters alongside pieces on translation in oral traditions and the literary politics of translator prefaces in Canada. It made the point that translation, enmeshed as it is in social and ideological structures, cannot be thought of as a transparent, neutral or innocent philological activity. The study of translation had thus readied itself for the new impulses deriving from cultural materialism, postcolonial studies and gender studies that would hit the field in the 1990s.6.2 TRANSLATION AND ETHICSThe new approaches shared a concern with ethics that went beyond the tentative steps in this direction that the functionalist and descriptive line had been taking. Functionalism and descriptivism asked who translated what, for whom, when, where, how and why.Adopting the point of view of the practising translator faced with continually having to make decisions about whether or not to accept a commission, what style of translating to pick and what syntactical structures and lexical choices to put down in sentence after sentence, researchers found in the notion of translation norms a useful analytical tool. Norms could be understood as being both psychological and social in nature. They were a social reality in that they presupposed communities and the values these communities subscribed to; they were psychological because they consisted of shared and internalized expectations about how individuals should behave and what choices they should make in certain types of situation.Gideon Toury (1995), who was among the first to apply the concept to translation as decision making, saw norms primarily as constraints on the translator’s behaviour. He also pointed out the relevance of the concept: t he totality of a translator’s norm-governed choices determines the shape of the final text.Others subsequently improved the theoretical underpinning by invoking the interplay between translator and audience (Geest 1992; Hermans 1991; Nord 1997). Norms possessed a directive character that told individuals what kind of statements were socially acceptable; thus, making the desired choices would result in translations deemed by the relevant community to be valid or legitimate, not just as translations but as cultural texts. In this sense norms functioned as problem-solving devices. Andrew Chesterman (1997a, 1997b) related norms to professional ethics, which, he claimed, demanded a commitment to adequate expression_r, thecreation of a truthful resemblance between original and translation,the maintenance of trust between the parties involved in the transaction and the minimization of misunderstanding. Drawing on the ethical codes of conduct of professional organizations, Chesterman went on to propose a Hieronymic oath for translators and interpreters worldwide, on the model of the medical profession’s Hippocratic oath (Chesterman 2001b).Chesterman’s proposal appeared in a special issue of the journal The Translator, entitled ‘The Return to Ethics’,edited by Anthony Pym (2001). Pym’s introduction stressed that ethics are concerned primarily with what particular individuals do in the immediacy of concrete situations; abstract principles are secondary.Pym himself has written at length on ethical aspects of translation (1992a, 1997, 2002, 2004). He argues that, since translation is a cross-cultural transaction, the translator’s task is one of fostering cooperation between all concerned, with the aim of achieving mutual benefit and trust. Focusing, like Chesterman, on professional translators, Pym sees them as operating in an intercultural space, which he describes as the position of the skilled mediator whose business it is to enable effective interlingual communication. The ethical choices which these intercultural professionals make extend beyond translation to language facilitation as such. For example, Pym argues, given the expense of producing translations over a period of time, the mediator may advise a client that learning the other language may be more cost-effective in the long term. Decisions like these mean weighing benefits for all participants and are motivated by the translator’s individual and corporate self-interest.The idea of translators as not so much hemmed in by norms as actively negotiating their way through them and taking up a position in the process, is helped along when the translator is seen as re-enunciator (Mossop 1983 and especially Folkart 1991). In this view translators do not just redirect pre-existing messages but, giving voice to new texts, they cannot help but intervene in them and, in so doing, establish a subject-position in the discourse they shape. As a result, translation is inevitably coloured by the translator’s subjectivity, generating a complex message in which several speaking voices and perspectives intermingle. The assumption, incidentally, that the translator’s ‘differential voice’ (Folkart’s term) will necessarily have its own timbre and ambience was later vindicated with the help of forensic stylistics: a study analysing a computerized corpusof translations by two different translators found that each left their linguistically idiosyncratic signature on their translations, regardless of the nature of the original text (Baker 2000). The relevance of such data does not lie in the mere recognition of the translator’s linguistic tics being strewn around a text. As Mikhail Bakhtin had already suggested (1981, 1986) in his discussions of dialogism and heteroglossia, the translator’s own position and ideology are ineluctably wri tten into the texts he or she translates. At the same time, the translator as re-enunciator and discursive subject in the text also brings on questions of responsibility and accountability, and hence ethics.A decisive shift of emphasis in translation studies may be discerned from this. For Toury, norms guided the translator’s textual decision making and hence determined the shape of the resulting translation; since he took it as axiomatic that the relation between translation and original was one of equivalence, norms determined equivalence, and there the matter ended. Seeing the translator as re-enunciator still has him or her making textual choices, but the relevance of these choices is now that they are read as profiling a subject-position which is primarily ideological. As a result, translators acquire agency in the evolving social, political and cultural configurations that make up society. A number of recent studies have focused on the role of translators in the context of cultural change, political discourse and identity formation in a variety of contexts (for a sampling: Bermann and Wood 2005; Calzada Pérez 2003; Cronin 2006; Ellis and Oakley-Brown 2001; House et al.2005; Tymoczko 2000; Tymoczko and Gentzler 2002; Venuti 1998b, 2005a). Considering in particular the role of interpreters and translators in contemporary situations of military and ideological conflict, Mona Baker (2006) has turned towards the theory of social narrative to frame her analyses. Jeremy Munday (2008) has harnessed critical discourse analysis and the linguistics of M.A.K. Halliday to analyse the ideological load of translated texts.6.3 REPRESENTATION6.4 INTERVENTIONS6.5 REPRESENTATION。
Functional theories of translation
2. Justa Holtz Manttari
• 加斯特· 赫尔兹· 曼塔里 • 芬兰籍德语翻译家和翻译学者 • Major work: Translatorisches Handeln: Theirie Und Methode (Translational Action: Theory and Method)
• Criticisms: • (1) why there should only be three types of language function. phatic function/poetic function • (2) Co-existence of functions “混杂型”文本 • (3) The translation method employed depends on far more than just text type. Translator’s own role and purpose and the socio-cultural pressures also affect the kind of translation strategy that is adopted.
1.2 Form-focused text
• “Generally speaking, all texts based on formal literary principles, and therefore all texts which express more than they state, where figures of speech and style serve to achieve an esthetic purpose---in a word: texis which may be called artistic literary works…we may say that form-focused texts include literary prose (essays, biographies, belles-lettres), imaginative prose (anecdotes, short stories, novellas, rommances), and poetry in all its forms (form the didactic to balladry to the purely sentimental).”
国外翻译研究丛书简介
国外翻译研究丛书简介国外翻译研究丛书之一•文化构建——文学翻译论集Constructing Cultures—Essays on Literary Translation作者: Susan Bassnet & Andre Lefevere 著语种: 英语简介本书是“国外翻译研究丛书”之一，它第一次把翻译研究学派的创始人物——苏珊•巴斯内特和安德列•勒菲弗尔的论文集合成册，他们不仅回顾了翻译研究的发展历史，总结翻译理论研究、文化研究，描述翻译研究以及翻译教学方面的最新动态，而且两位学者、翻译家还进一步拓展翻译研究的疆域，指明这一学科将来的发展方向。
书中探讨的主题有：中西译论、可译性的限度、翻译何时并非翻译、翻译研究与文化研究的关系等等。
国外翻译研究丛书之二•跨文化交际——翻译理论与对比篇章语言学Communication Across Cultures—Translation Theory and Contrastive TextLinguistics作者: Basil Hatim 著语种: 英语简介本书是“国外翻译研究丛书”之一，是一部将对比语言学、篇章语言学和翻译理论结合起来研究跨文化交际的学术著作。
作者针对目前翻译理论、对比语言学、话语分析三个学科自成一体的学术局面，试图将三者融会贯通。
本书借助大量篇章文字，通过翻译实例，指出了在跨文化、跨语言的翻译中需要引起人们高度重视的焦点问题。
书中材料真实可信，具有深刻的理论价值，适用面广。
国外翻译研究丛书之三•目的性行为——析功能翻译理论Translating As A Purposeful Activity作者: Christiane Nord 著语种: 英语简介本书是“国外翻译研究丛书”之一，它讲述了功能派的形成过程、基本思想和作者本人提出的翻译的忠诚原则。
书中还涉及到该理论在译者培训、文学翻译、口译中的应用以及对译者翻译道德观念的影响。
翻译的换喻过程_MariaTymoczko教授论翻译
福建外语 (季刊)2001年第4期(总第70期)翻译的换喻过程M aria T ymoczko教授论翻译李 欣(天津外国语学院英语系,天津 300204)摘要 作为翻译研究 摆布 学派的代表人之一,M aria T ymoczko教授认为翻译研究的模式应该是文化层面的宏观研究与语言学层面的微观研究的有机结合。
她对翻译研究的贡献在于创造性地将Roman Jakobson关于人类思维两大基本方式的区分(暗喻与换喻)应用于翻译研究领域,强调了翻译的换喻过程,即翻译的联系/创造功能以及翻译的局部性。
她的翻译观为我国译论研究开辟了新的视角。
关键词 翻译研究模式 换喻 联系/创造功能 局部性Abstract M aria T y moczko,a r epresentative of the manipulation school,believes that the mode of translation studies should be a combination of study at both the macroscopic(cultural)and the microscopic(linguistic)level. Her contribution lies in her orig inal application to translation studies of Roman Jakobso n s basic modes of human t hought(metaphor ic and metonymic).T ranslation is view ed as a metonymic process.T he connection/creation func tion and partiality of translat ion is foregrounded.Her view opens up a new perspective for translation studies in China.Key words mode of translat ion studies;metonym;function o f connectio n/creation;part iality中图分类号 H059 文献标识码 A 文章编号 1009-2706(2001)04-0042-05翻译研究 (Translation Studies)学派在西方兴起将近三十年了,其间出现许多流派,如佐哈尔(Even Zohar)的多元系统理论(polysystem theory)、图瑞(Toury)的描写译学(descriptive translation studies)、摆布学派(manipulation school/group)、特拉维夫 勒芬学派(Tel Aviv Leuven school)、低地国家学派(Low Countries g roup)等等。
翻译专业理论必读书目
culture1. Bassnett, Susan and Andre Lefevere, eds. Constructing Culture:, Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press, 2001.2. Bassnett, Susan and Andre Lefevere, eds. Translation, History and Culture: ASource Book. London: Routledge, 1992.3. Hermans, Theo, ed. Translating Others. Volume 1/2. Manchester: St. Jeromepublishing. 2006.4. Katan, David. Translating Cultures. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign LanguagesEducation Press, 20045. Leppihalme, Ritva. Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to the Translation ofAllusions.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD, 1997.6. Nida, Eugene A. Language, Culture and Translating. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Languages Education Press, 1993.7. Schaffner, Christina and Helen Kelly-Holmes. Cultural Functions of Translation.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD, 1995.Candace Seguinot: Translation and Advertising: Going Global. P.55-718.Venuti, Lawrence, ed. The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge,2000.7.9.9. Wang, Kefei. A Cultural History of Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press, 1997.10．王秉钦. 《文化翻译学》天津：南开大学出版社，1995.11.刘宓庆. 《文化翻译论纲》武汉：湖北教育出版社，1999.12．谢天振.《译介学》上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999.13．孔慧怡.《翻译、文学、文化》北京：北京大学出版社,1999.14．郭建中.《文化与翻译》北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2000.15.包惠南.《文化语境与语言翻译》北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2001. 16．金惠康.《跨文化交际翻译及续篇》北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2003. 17贾文波.《应用翻译功能论》北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,2004.18陈小慰.《新编实用翻译教程》北京：经济科学出版社，2006.当代翻译理论书目：Baker, Mona, (eds.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies[C], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.Gentzler, Edwin. 2001. Contemporary Translation Theories (2nd Rev. Edition). London/New York: Routledge. (chpt.5)Kittel, Harald & Armin Paul Frank (eds.) Interculturality and the Historical Study of Literary Translations. Beijing: Foreign language teaching and research press, 2007.Munday, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge.Robinson, Douglas (ed.). Western Translation Theory From Herodotus to Nietzsche [C], Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997; Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond[M], Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995; Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Tymoczko, Maria. Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in English Translation [M], Manchester: St Jerome, 1999; Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Venuti, Lawrence (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader[C], London and New York: Routledge, 2000.申雨平编，《西方翻译理论精选》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2002年4月。
中西翻译理论Lec.2_--_Translation_History_and_Traditional_Translation_Theories_(1)
John Dryden (1631-1700) – a triadic model of 1631-1700) translation
“metaphrase”: “word by word and line by line” metaphrase” translation, which corresponds to literal translation – “’Tis much likeபைடு நூலகம்dancing on ropes with fettered legs – a foolish task.” task. “paraphrase” – “translation with latitude, where the paraphrase” author is kept in view by the translator, so as never to be lost, but his words are not so strictly followed as his sense. sense.” “imitation” – “forsaking” both words and sense, or imitation” “adaptation”: “adaptation”: the translator uses the ST “as a pattern to write as he supposes that author would have done, had he lived in our age and in our country”; imitation allows the country”; translator to become more visible, but does “the greatest wrong … to the memory and reputation of the dead.” dead.
卡特福德翻译转换理论
[3]林铃.卡特福德翻译转换模式下的翻译研究过程 [A]. 翻译研究 ，2009，（5）：74
➢ 卡氏翻译转换理论是机器翻译的先声，也是机器翻译的重要理 论依据。实现机器翻译就要制定一系列转换规则。因此，从理 论上阐释翻译转换，也就有助于机器翻译的发展。
➢ 卡特福德用普通语言学的理论详细描述了和划分了翻译过程中 的种种转换现象，对一向以朦胧经验式和印象式为标准的中国 传统翻译实践有一定的借鉴意义。
➢ 多年来一直从事语言的教学和研究 ,能流利地使用法 语 ,比较熟练地掌握除俄语和现代希腊语 ,还略懂德 语、梵语、拉丁语、阿拉伯语、希伯莱语、土耳其语 和印度尼西亚语等多种语言。
2020/8/17
翻译代表作
卡氏论翻译的代表作是1965年由牛津大学出版社 出版的《翻译的语言学理论》。 A Linguistic Theory of Translation
2020/8/17
二.“翻译转换” (TRANSLATION SHIFT）理论
➢ “转换” 是指原语进入译语过程中离开形
式的对应。。
层次转换 (level shifts) 转换
范畴转换 (category shifts）
2020/8/17
1. 层次转换 (level shifts)
➢ 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等值成分。
2020/8/17
Eg： I saw you yesterday。主 谓 宾 状 我 昨天 看见 你了。 主 状 谓 宾
Translators and Their Thranslation Theories in the Renaissance
2 法国—雅克·阿米欧、 艾蒂安·多雷
文艺复兴使意大利成为欧洲众多学者向往的知识之城，他们纷纷来此学习，并将学到 的知识传播到欧洲各个地方，促进了学术和文化的交流。文艺复兴的氛围很快就影响到了 法国，这个时期的法国在翻译领域取得了令人瞩目的成就。
法国文艺复兴时期的翻译有以下几个特点： 首先: 随着民族语古法语的逐渐成熟，从希腊语、拉丁语和阿拉伯语翻译成古法语的作品逐渐增多。 其次:翻译的题材多样，既有柏拉图、亚里士多德的哲学、政治著作，也有阿拉伯语的医学、天文和
4.Dolet emphasized the importance of using national language and idioms, so ordinary people can also understand translation work.（多 雷强调使用民族语言和习惯用法的重要性，强调为一般读者服务，让平 民百姓能看懂译文） 5.The last principle asks translator to adopt rhetorical devices proficiently and make target language be consistent with source language in writing style. （译文必须通过各种修辞手段在风格上与原 文保持一致）
1.2 Leonardo Bruni (1369—1444)
利奥纳多 布鲁尼 的主要著作是《佛罗伦萨史》History of Florence, 被称为西方第一步现代史著作。他精通希腊语和拉丁语和拉丁语，曾翻 译过柏拉图，亚里士多德的哲学作品，还关注和研究过古罗马历史学家 塔西佗Tacitus的作品。此外，他还翻译了意大利著名文学家但丁，彼得 拉克，薄伽丘的传记。布鲁尼在翻译是不采用逐字翻译，而是用灵活的 意译向读者传达原文的意义。他认为，与语言的特征想比，译者的主要 任务是要“能把握原文的韵律和节奏，尤其是原作特有的风格。译者在 翻译的时候要全身心投入，努力保持原作的风格”
中国翻译理论史上的三次论争
中国翻译理论史上的三次论争摘要本文从我国翻译史上著名的三次翻译论争出发,通过对论争的详细梳理,理清中国译论的发展的线索和脉络,发掘其中的闪光点和代表当时最先进水平的翻译理论,并在此基础上对我国译论的发展做出预测。
第一次论争是二十世纪初的“直译、意译”之争。
这次论争以汉语的发展为焦点,让一向被视为“小辨”的翻译第一次高调地进入了人们的视野。
这场论争实现了翻译的自觉,让其逐渐脱离了译者随意删改原著的编译阶段,让人们对于译本的态度从一味求“顺”转移到了求“信”;在这个过程中,研究者们对于翻译、语言及思想的关系做出了深刻的论述,提出了以翻译更新思想,用翻译改造汉语的理论;此外,研究者们还提出了具有中国特色的翻译“神形说”,并从汉语的特征出发,对如何在语言层面上实现“神形兼备”的忠实进行了探索。
有研究者论述“绝对忠实”的不可能,甚至与现代阐释学的观点不谋而合。
第二次论争是开始于二十世纪 80 年代的“异化、归化”之争。
这次论争围绕翻译的文化内涵进行。
在新时期和新形势下,人们对于直译、异译的讨论有了新的内涵,翻译理论从对翻译中文化因素的日益关注,到最终将翻译视为文化交往活动进行研究,开始了译论研究的“文化转向”。
在这个转向之后,翻译理论研究不再局限于文本层面的讨论,而是深入和扩展到文化、文学、政治、经济领域,成为国际政治交往、学术交流、文化比较的重要课题。
在借鉴和思考西方理论的基础上,我国的翻译研究者从更宏观的角度对异化归化做出了全新的阐释。
在我国译论中,异化归化已经脱离了后殖民主义的狭隘视角,甚至可以说具有了更广泛深远的意义。
同时作为一种交往活动,译者的伦理性再度成为研究者关注的焦点,在新的背景和形式下对译者的自身修养提出了更高的要求。
第三次论争以“翻译学”的构建为中心,通过对“翻译是不是一门科学”的讨论,破解了常年困扰译坛的“科学主义迷思”;通过对翻译学学科性质的争论,驳斥了“理论无用”论,解开了“综合性学科”之惑,逐步统一了思想和认识;并尝试从哲学高度对我国现当代译论发展做出了总结;在建构翻译学的努力中,批判性地重新对西方理论进行了评价,在与其对照对比的过程中,进一步认识到了自身的特点和不足,明确了我国当代翻译理论的发展方向:从本国、本民族的翻译实践现状出发,在重新评估和吸收传统译学中的宝贵财富的基础上借鉴和学习西方译论,以系统化、科学化的翻译理论推进翻译学科的全面建设,建为世界翻译理论研究做出贡献。
浅析翻译中的自然对等与方向对等理论——以《人间失格》原文、中译本、英译本为例
语言新探浅析翻译中的自然对等与方向对等理论——以《人间失格》原文、中译本、英译本为例白雪东北林业大学外国语学院摘要：翻译的“对等性”作为翻译中重要的一环在各个年代均作为不同学派学者讨论的焦点而存在。
从奈达的“功能对等”理论到卡特福特的“等值替换”学说，学者们在翻译过程中均着眼于翻译文本，而在翻译中发挥着重要作用的译者却不被重视。
现代学者安东尼•皮姆提出了以译者为出发点的“自然对等”及“方向对等”理论，本文将从这两个理论出发进行分析讨论。
关键词：自然对等；方向对等；《人间失格》；翻译一、翻译中的对等理论“译”字在《说文解字》中的释义为“传译四夷之言者”，现代汉语将“翻译”解释为“将一种语言文字改变为相同意义的另一种语言文字”，英文维基百科中对于“translation(翻译)”的定义为“Translation is the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target-language text.”(翻译是通过对等的目标语言文本来传达源语言文本的意义)，日本维基百科对于“翻訳”做出了如下的释义：“翻訳とは、Aの形で記録·表現されているものから、その意味するところに対応するBの形に翻案することである。
”(所谓翻译，就是从以A的形式来进行记录表现的东西，转换成与A意义对应的B的形式)。
无论是尤金•奈达还是其追随者萨尔学派，抑或是卡特福特，这些理论家提出的对等理论均以翻译文本作为出发点，竭力追求文本上的功能对等，却忽视了“译者”这个在翻译中时时刻刻发挥着主观能动性的群体。
源语言及目的语之间的翻译由译者来完成，为实现目的语文本对于源语言文本最大程度上的意义对等，译者应在最大程度上了解原文内容及风格等，此时翻译的过程中就产生了方向性。
国际知名学者安东尼•皮姆在论文《Natural and directional equivalence in theories of translation》(翻译理论中的自然与方向对等)(2007)中明确提出了翻译中的自然对等与方向对等，之后又在《Exploring translation theories》(翻译理论探索)(2010)中对于自然对等及方向对等进行了较为详细的解释。
翻译理论与实践TranslationtheoriesandPractice
翻译理论与实践（汉译英）Translation Theories and Practice (Chinese-English Translation )Teaching Notes for Senior College Students（2005年9月）刘国忠2578706*************.cnTopics at first:1. 解读汉译英《教学大纲》2. 解读汉译英《考试大纲》3. 汉译英学习指导①重要性②特性③实践性汉译英精典教材：1. 《英汉翻译教程》张培基喻天根《汉英翻译教程》吕瑞昌喻天根上海外语教育出版社 1980.92.《汉英翻译基础》陈宏薇上海外语教育出版社 1998/23.《英汉互译实用教程》宋天锡等国防工业出版社2000/14.《实用翻译教程》（英汉互译）增订本冯庆华上海外语教育出版社2002/55.《实用汉英翻译教程》曾诚外语教学与研究出版社2002/46.《翻译教学：实务与理论》刘宓庆中国对外翻译出版公司2003/1•汉译英主要内容：•一、汉译英实务教学•二、历届TEM8汉译英试卷评析•三、汉译英练习与评析•—汉英翻译强化训练汉译英实务教学主要内容一、汉英词语对比二、汉英句法基本差异（一）汉英句子的主语比较三、汉英句法基本差异（二）汉语谓语动词的分析和翻译四、被动语态的翻译五、汉译英中的主谓定位六、汉译英中的句子整合问题增补内容：七、如何避免翻译中的Chinglish八、汉英翻译中的文化传递九、公示语的翻译十、历届TEM8汉译英试卷评析十一、汉译英练习与评析—汉英翻译强化训练汉译英学习指导（一）如何保证翻译课的教学效果1.以―正当程序‖保证翻译质量无论英译汉，还是汉译英，译文都需要准确、通顺，这是翻译的基本要求。
表达准确的基础是对原文的准确理解：译者必须准确地理解原文的每个词、每句话和作者的意图。
表达通顺的基础是对译入语的熟练运用。
我们在做汉译英时，存在一个天然的劣势：由于英语不是我们的母语，做到表达的准确和通顺相当困难。
从改写理论角度分析电影《泰坦尼克号》的配音翻译_英语专业毕业论文
题目: An Analysis of the Dubbing Translation of Titanic: From thePerspective of Rewriting Theory从改写理论角度分析电影《泰坦尼克号》的配音翻译AcknowledgementsOn completion of this thesis, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all those whose kindness and advice have made this work possible.My heartfelt thanks go first to my supervisor, Professor Wang Jinhua, whose profound knowledge of and great passion for the audiovisual translation studies have inspired me to write the thesis. He has provided with me not only substantial and valuable references but also illuminating instructions and constructive suggestions.I am also grateful to Professor Yang Zhihong, in whose writing class I have gained some general knowledge of the steps and elements of conducting research and some fundamental translation theories, which are basic to the writing of this thesis. On the subject of writing, I shall definitely not skip Professor Wang Labao who offered beneficial guidance in his Comprehensive English Course as to how to think and write critically and logically. I am also deeply indebted to all the other teachers in the School of Foreign Languages of Soochow University whose classes and lectures I attended all these years have helped me academically prepare for the thesis.Last but not least, I would like to thank my friends and schoolmates for their unfailing support and understanding throughout the process of writing this thesis.AbstractThe contribution films have made to international cultural communication has become more and more important with the acceleration of globalization process and the increase of exchanges between people in different countries. In the spread of films from one culture to another, translation plays an indispensable part. Of the two dominant forms of film translation, subtitling and dubbing, the latter has a higher aesthetic value, and dubbed films remain the major type of foreign films officially introduced into China. However, studies of audiovisual translation are lacking both in number and systematicness, which is not consistent with the fast development of the audiovisual industry and the urgent demand for quality film translation. In view of this situation, the author analyzes the dubbing translation of the film Titanic by applying Andre Lefe vere’s theory of rewriting and looks into the control factors behind rewriting in translation.Andre Lefevere (1946-96) was a prominent scholar and translator of his time and contributed significantly to cultural translation studies. His theory of rewriting is fully developed in his book Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame (1992), in which he states that translation is “a rewriting of an original text” (ibid.: xv). The original text, translated in a given culture and society, is rewritten to conform to the dominant ideology and poetics of the target culture.The thesis examines the rewritings in the dubbing translation of the film Titanic within the framework of rewriting theory and draws conclusions as follows: the dubbing translation of the film comes under the influence of three factors, i.e., ideology, poetics and patronage; dubbing translation is done within both technical constraints and cultural constraints, the latter not only proving the applicability of rewriting theory to dubbing translation, but also attaching due significance to the actual translation and adaptation of the dialogue; Lefevere’s model goes beyond language and focuses on the interaction between translation and culture and thus is instrumental in situating translation within a broadersocio-cultural context and encouraging objective, systematic, and in-depth analyses of translations.Key words: dubbing translation, Titanic, rewriting theory摘要随着中外文化交流不断扩大和深入，中外影视作品的交流也日益频繁，越来越多的影视作品被引入国内，影视翻译研究也蓬勃兴起。
Introduction to the Course of Translation Theories and Practice
Introduction to the Course of Translation Theories and PracticeQuestions for discussion1. What is translation?2. How many categories do you think translation can be divided into, and what are they?3. What are the characteristics of translation? Describe it in detail, please.4. What is style and stylistics? What is the relationship between style and translation?5. What are we going to learn in this course?6. What is translation theory and what are translation techniques? What is the relationship between them?7. As a translator, what competence should you have? Can you describe it in detail?8. How can we learn the course well?·Translation is as old as a language itself , probably starting from thousands years ago . It has been used as an indispensable means of mediation , a useful aid to preaching and teaching , and to the social and culture , and commercial exchanges and mutual understanding between different peoples and different countries . It has become part of human life.Definitions of translation1) Translation consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.所谓翻译，是在译语中用最切近的自然的对等语再现原语的信息，首先是意义，其次是文体.2) The replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL).翻译可作如下界定：用一种语言（目的语）的文本材料对等地再现另一种语言（出发语）的文本材料.3) A translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work. The style and manner of writing should be of the same character as that of the original. A translation should have all the ease of the original composition.Definitions of translation译文应完全复写出原作的思想。
英语专业翻译类论文参考文献
参考文献一、翻译理论与实践相关书目谢天振主编. 《当代国外翻译理论导读》. 天津：南开大学出版社，2008.Jeremy Munday. 《翻译学导论——理论与实践》Introducing Translation Studies---Theories and Applications. 李德凤等译. 北京：商务印书馆，2007.包惠南、包昂. 《中国文化与汉英翻译》. 北京：外文出版社, 2004.包惠南. 《文化语境与语言翻译》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 2001.毕继万. 《世界文化史故事大系——英国卷》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 2003.蔡基刚. 《英汉汉英段落翻译与实践》. 上海：复旦大学出版社, 2001.蔡基刚. 《英汉写作对比研究》. 上海：复旦大学出版社, 2001.蔡基刚. 《英语写作与抽象名词表达》. 上海：复旦大学出版社, 2003.曹雪芹、高鄂. 《红楼梦》.陈定安. 《英汉比较与翻译》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 1991.陈福康. 《中国译学理论史稿》（修订本）. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2000.陈生保. 《英汉翻译津指》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 1998.陈廷祐. 《英文汉译技巧》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 2001.陈望道. 《修辞学发凡》. 上海：上海教育出版社, 1979.陈文伯. 《英汉翻译技法与练习》. 北京：世界知识出版社. 1998.陈中绳、吴娟. 《英汉新词新义佳译》. 上海：上海翻译出版公司. 1990.陈忠诚. 《词语翻译丛谈》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 1983.程希岚. 《修辞学新编》. 吉林：吉林人民出版社, 1984.程镇球. 《翻译论文集》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 2002.程镇球. 《翻译问题探索》. 北京：商务印书馆, 1980.崔刚. 《广告英语》. 北京：北京理工大学出版社, 1993.单其昌. 《汉英翻译技巧》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 1990.单其昌. 《汉英翻译讲评》. 北京：对外贸易教育出版社. 1989.邓炎昌、刘润清. 《语言与文化——英汉语言文化对比》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社, 1989.丁树德. 《英汉汉英翻译教学综合指导》. 天津：天津大学出版社, 1996.杜承南等，《中国当代翻译百论》. 重庆：重庆大学出版社, 1994.《翻译通讯》编辑部. 《翻译研究论文集（1894-1948）》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 1984. 《翻译通讯》编辑部. 《翻译研究论文集（1949-1983）》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 1984. . 范勇主编. 《新编汉英翻译教程》. 天津：南开大学出版社. 2006.方梦之、马秉义（编选）. 《汉译英实践与技巧》. 北京：旅游教育出版社. 1996.方梦之. 《英语汉译实践与技巧》. 天津：天津科技翻译出版公司. 1994.方梦之主编. 《译学辞典》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2004.冯翠华. 《英语修辞大全》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社, 1995.冯庆华. 《文体与翻译》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 2002.冯庆华主编. 《文体翻译论》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2002.冯胜利. 《汉语的韵律、词法与句法》. 北京：北京大学出版社, 1997.冯志杰. 《汉英科技翻译指要》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 1998.耿占春. 《隐喻》. 北京：东方出版社, 1993.郭建中. 《当代美国翻译理论》. 武汉：湖北教育出版社. 2000.郭建中. 《文化与翻译》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 2000.郭锡良，唐作藩，何九盈，蒋绍愚，田瑞娟. 《古代汉语》. 北京：商务印书馆,1999.《汉英经贸手册》编写组. 《汉英经贸手册》. 西安：陕西人民出版社, 1988.何炳威. 《容易误译的英语》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 2002.何刚强. 《现代英汉翻译操作》. 北京：北京大学出版社. 1998.何刚强. 《现代英语表达与汉语对应》. 上海：复旦大学出版社. 1994.何刚强. 《英汉口笔译技艺》. 上海：复旦大学出版社, 2003.何刚强. 《最新英语翻译疑难详解》. 上海：华东理工大学出版社. 1996.何善芬. 《英汉语言对比研究》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2002.何兆熊. 《语用学概要》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 1989.何自然、张达三、杨伟钧等译. 《现代英语语法教程》. 北京：商务印书馆, 1990.何自然. 《语用学概论》. 长沙: 湖南教育出版社, 1988.侯维瑞. 《英语语体》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 1988.胡庚申. 《怎样起草与翻译合同协议》. 合肥：中国科技大学出版社, 1993.胡曙中. 《英汉修辞比较研究》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 1993.胡晓吉. 《实用英汉对比翻译》. 北京：中国人民大学出版社. 1990.胡燕平，张容建. 《实用英汉翻译类典》. 重庆：重庆出版社, 1997.胡裕树. 《现代汉语》. 上海：上海教育出版社, 1987.胡兆云. 《美学理论视野中的文学翻译研究》（第2版）. 北京：现代教育出版社. 2009. 胡兆云. 《语言接触与英汉借词研究》. 济南：山东大学出版社. 2001.胡壮麟. 《语篇的衔接与连贯》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 1994.胡壮麟. 《语言学教程》. 北京：北京大学出版社, 1988.黄伯荣, 廖序东. 《现代汉语》. 兰州：甘肃人民出版社, 1981.黄国文. 《语篇分析概要》. 长沙：湖南教育出版社, 1988.黄龙. 《翻译技巧指导》. 沈阳：辽宁人民出版社, 1986.黄任. 《英语修辞与写作》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 1996.黄雨石. 《英汉文学翻译探索》. 西安：陕西人民出版社. 1988.黄振定. 《翻译学：艺术论与科学论的统一》. 长沙：湖南教育出版社. 1998.黄振定. 《翻译学的语言哲学基础》. 上海：上海交通大学出版社. 2007.黄忠廉. 《变译理论》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 2002.贾尔斯英译. 《孙子兵法》. 长沙：湖南出版社, 1993.贾文波. 《汉英时文翻译: 政治经济汉译英300句析》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 1999. 贾玉新. 《跨文化交际学》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 1997.金隄. 《等效翻译探索》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 1998.金惠康. 《汉英跨文化交际翻译》. 贵阳：贵州教育出版社. 1998.金惠康. 《跨文华交际翻译》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 2003.金惠康. 《跨文华交际翻译续编》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 2004.金立鑫. 《语法的多视角研究》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 2000.居祖纯. 《新编汉英语篇翻译》. 北京：清华大学出版社, 2002.柯平. 《对比语言学》. 南京：南京师范大学出版社, 1999.孔慧怡. 《翻译·文学·文化》. 北京：北京大学出版社. 1999.李定坤. 《汉英辞格对比与翻译》. 武汉：华中师范大学出版社, 1994.李国南. 《辞格与词汇》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 2002.李国南. 《英汉修辞格对比研究》. 福州：福建人民出版社, 1999.李明编著. 《英汉互动翻译教程》. 武汉：武汉大学出版社. 2006.李瑞华（主编）. 《英汉语言文化对比研究》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 1996.李亚舒、严毓棠、张明、赵兰慧. 《科技翻译论著集萃》. 北京：中国科学技术出版社. 1994. 李正栓. 《英美诗歌教程》. 北京：清华大学出版社. 2004.李正中. 《国际经贸英汉翻译》. 北京：中国国际广播出版社. 1997.理雅各英译. 《四书》. 长沙：湖南出版社, 1994.连淑能. 《英汉对比研究》. 北京：高等教育出版社. 1993.廖七一. 《当代英国翻译理论》. 武汉：湖北教育出版社. 2001.林大津. 《跨文化交际学：理论与实践》. 福州：福建人民出版社. 2005.林大津等主编.《修辞学大视野》. 福州：海峡文艺出版社. 2007.林煌天主编. 《中国翻译词典》. 武汉：湖北教育出版社. 1997.刘宓庆. 《当代翻译理论》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 1999.刘宓庆. 《翻译教学: 实务与理论》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 2003.刘宓庆. 《翻译与语言哲学》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 2001.刘宓庆. 《文化翻译论纲》. 武汉：湖北教育出版社. 1999.刘宓庆. 《文体与翻译》（增订版）. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 1998.刘士聪等. 《汉英•英汉美文翻译与鉴赏》. 南京：译林出版社, 2003.刘英凯. 《英汉语音修辞》. 广州：广东高等教育出版社, 1998.刘重德. 《文学翻译十讲》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 1991.刘重德. 《英汉语比较与翻译》. 青岛：青岛出版社, 1998.陆钰明. 《汉英翻译指导》. 上海：远东出版社. 1995.吕俊《跨越文化障碍――巴比塔的重建》. 南京：东南大学出版社. 2001.吕淑湘, 王海棻. 《马氏文通读本》. 上海：上海教育出版社, 1986.吕煦. 《实用英语修辞》. 北京：清华大学出版社, 2004.罗贯中. 《三国演义》.罗选民. 《话语分析的英汉语比较研究》. 长沙：湖南人民出版社, 2001.马红军. 《翻译批评散论》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 2000.马祖毅. 《中国翻译简史——五四以前部分》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 1982.毛荣贵. 《新世纪大学汉英翻译教程》. 上海：上海交通大学出版社, 2002.倪宝元. 《大学修辞》. 上海：上海教育出版社, 1994.潘文国. 《汉英语对比纲要》. 北京：北京语言文化大学出版社. 1997.彭宣维. 《英汉语篇综合对比》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2000.钱歌川. 《现代英语表现法》. 香港：中外出版社, 1975.钱冠连. 《美学语言学》. 深圳：海天出版社, 1993.钱乃荣等. 《现代汉语》. 北京：高等教育出版, 1990.钱维潘. 《英语应用文》. 上海：上海教育出版社, 1984.乔海清. 《翻译新论》. 北京：北京语言学院出版社. 1993.邵志洪. 《翻译理论、实践与评析》. 上海：华东理工大学出版社, 2003.邵志洪. 《英汉语研究与对比》. 上海：华东理工大学出版社, 1997.申丹. 《文学文体学与小说翻译》. 北京：北京大学出版社. 1995.申小龙. 《语言的文化阐释》. 上海：知识出版社, 1992.申小龙. 《汉语句型研究》. 海口：海南人民出版社, 1989.申小龙. 《汉语与中国文化》. 上海：复旦大学出版社, 2003.申小龙. 《文化语言学》. 南昌：江西教育出版社, 1993.申雨平（编）. 《西方翻译理论精选》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 2002.沈少华. 《英语趣味修辞格》. 北京：语文出版社, 1999.施耐庵. 《水浒传》.束定芳. 《隐喻学研究》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 2000.司马迁. 《史记》.思果. 《译道探微》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 2002.孙全洲. 《现代汉语学习词典》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 1996.孙晓丽. 《广告英语与实例》. 北京：中国广播电视出版社, 1995.孙致礼. 《1949－1966：我国英美文学翻译概论》. 南京：译林出版社. 1996.谭载喜. 《翻译学》. 武汉：湖北教育出版社. 2000.谭载喜. 《新编奈达论翻译》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 1999.倜西、董乐山等（编）. 《英汉翻译手册》. 北京：商务印书馆国际有限公司. 2002.汪福祥、伏力. 《英美文化与英汉翻译》. 北京：外文出版社. 2003.王大伟. 《现代汉英翻译技巧》. 上海：世界图书出版公司, 2000.王德春. 《语言学通论》. 南京：江苏教育出版社, 1990.王逢鑫. 《英汉比较语义学》. 北京：外文出版社, 2001.王还（主编）. 《汉英对比论文集》. 北京：北京语言学院出版社. 1993.王季思. 《中国十大古典喜剧集》. 上海：上海文艺出版社, 1982.王克非. 《翻译文化史论》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 1997.王令坤（主编）. 《英汉翻译技巧》. 上海：上海交通大学出版社. 1998.王希杰. 《汉语修辞学》. 北京：北京出版社, 1983.王希杰. 《修辞学导论》. 杭州：浙江教育出版社, 2000.王佐良、丁往道. 《英语文体学引论》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社, 1990.王佐良. 《翻译：思考与试笔》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社, 1989.魏志成. 《英汉语比较导论》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2003.魏志成. 《英汉语比较导论》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2003.翁显良. 《意态由来画不成？》北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 1983.吴承恩. 《西游记》.吴楚材、吴调侯. 《古文观止》.吴敬梓. 《儒林外史》.武力、赵栓科编著. 《科技英汉与汉英翻译教程》. 西安：西北工业大学出版社. 2007.吴伟雄、方凡泉. 《实用英语翻译技巧》. 昆明：云南人民出版社. 1997.伍谦光. 《语义学导论》. 长沙：湖南教育出版社, 1988.萧涤非等. 《唐诗鉴赏辞典》. 上海：上海辞书出版社, 1988.萧立明. 《新译学论稿》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 2001.萧立明. 《英汉比较研究与翻译》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2002.肖辉、汪晓毛主编. 《汉译英教程》. 西安：西安交通大学出版社. 2008.肖君石. An Approach to Translation from Chinese into English and Vice Versa（《汉英、英汉翻译初探》）. 北京：商务印书馆, 1982.谢祖钧. 《英语修辞漫谈》. 福州：福建人民出版社, 1981.熊文华. 《汉英应用对比概论》. 北京：北京语言文化大学出版社, 1997.许国烈. 《中英文学名著译文比录》. 西安：陕西人民出版社. 1985.许建忠. 《工商企业翻译实务》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 2002.许钧等. 《文学翻译的理论与实践——翻译对话录》. 南京：译林出版社. 2001.许明武. 《新闻英语与翻译》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 2003.许余龙. 《对比语言学概论》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 1992.许渊冲、陆佩弦、吴钧陶. 《唐诗三百首新译》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 1988.许渊冲. 《汉英对照唐诗三百首》. 北京：高等教育出版社, 2000.许渊冲. 《文学与翻译》. 北京：北京大学出版社, 2003.许渊冲. 《中诗英韵探胜》. 北京：北京大学出版社, 1992.许仲琳. 《封神演义》.杨自俭（主编）. 《译学新探》. 青岛：青岛出版社. 2002.杨自俭（主编）. 《英汉语比较与翻译（2）》. 青岛：青岛出版社杨自俭（主编）. 《英汉语比较与翻译（3）》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2000.杨自俭（主编）. 《英汉语比较与翻译（4）. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2002.杨自俭（主编）. 《英汉语比较与翻译（5）》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2004.杨自俭、李瑞华（主编）. 《英汉对比研究论文集》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 1990.杨自俭、刘学云（编）. 《翻译新论（1983－1992）》. 武汉：湖北教育出版社. 1992.叶子南. 《高级英汉翻译理论与实践》. 北京：清华大学出版社. 2001.于岚. 《英汉实例翻译技巧》. 北京：旅游教育出版社. 1997.喻云根. 《英汉对比语言学》. 北京：北京工业大学出版社, 1994.喻云根. 《英美名著翻译比较》. 武汉：湖北教育出版社. 1996.臧克和. 《说文解字的文化说解》. 武汉：湖北人民出版社, 1994.余立三. 《英汉修辞比较与翻译》. 北京：商务印书馆, 1985.张柏然、许钧（主编）. 《面向21世纪的译学研究》. 北京：商务印书馆. 2002.张斌. 《汉语语法学》. 上海：上海教育出版社, 1998.张道真. 《现代英语用法词典》. 上海：上海译文出版社, 1983.张德禄. 《功能文体学》. 济南：山东教育出版社, 1998.张经浩. 《译论》. 长沙：湖南教育出版社. 1996.张鸾铃. 《实用英汉翻译技巧》. 广州：广东高等教育出版社. 1996.Christiane Nord. 《译有所为——功能翻译理论阐释》. 张美芳、王克菲主译. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 2005.张梦井, 杜耀文. 《汉英科技翻译指南》. 北京：航空工业出版社, 1996.张培基. 《英译中国现代散文选》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 1999.张培基. 《英译中国现代散文选》(第二辑). 上海：上海外语教育出版社, 1999.张廷琛, 魏博思. 《唐诗一百首: 汉英对照》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 1991.张宗美. 《科技汉英翻译技巧》. 北京：宇航出版社, 1992.章和升、王云桥. 《英汉翻译技巧》. 北京：当代世界出版社. 1997.章振邦. 《新编英语语法》. 上海：上海译文出版社, 1981.赵静. 《广告英语》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社, 1993.赵世开（主编）. 《汉英对比语法论集》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 1999.中国对外翻译出版公司（编）. 《联合国翻译论文集》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 1993. 中国译协《中国翻译》编辑部（选编）. 《论英汉翻译技巧》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司. 1986.中科院语言研究所词典编辑室. 1984. 《现代汉语词典》. 北京：商务印书馆, 1984.钟述孔. 《英汉翻译手册》. 北京：世界知识出版社. 1997.周方珠. 《英汉翻译原理》. 合肥：安徽大学出版社. 2002.周煦良. 《诗词翻译的艺术》. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司, 1986.周志培. 《汉英对比与翻译中的转换》. 上海: 华东理工大学出版社, 2003.朱诗向. 《中国时尚热点新词速译》. 北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社. 2002.朱永生、郑立信、苗兴伟. 《英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2001.二、翻译教材书目连淑能. 《英译汉教程》. 北京：高等教育出版社. 2006.杨士焯. 《英汉翻译教程》. 北京：北京大学出版社. 2006.陈宏薇、李亚丹主编（陈宏薇、陈浪、李亚丹、谢瑾编）. 《新编汉英翻译教程》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2004.贺军主编. 《英语翻译实务基础版》. 北京：北京出版社，2005.陈宏薇. 《新实用汉译英教程》. 武汉：湖北教育出版社. 1996.陈宏薇. 《汉英翻译基础》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 1998.魏志成. 《汉英比较翻译教程》. 北京：清华大学出版社. 2006.刘宓庆主编. 《翻译基础》. 上海：华东师范大学出版社. 2008.张春柏. 《汉英英汉翻译教程》. 北京: 高等教育出版社. 2003.陈茂松. 《新编英汉翻译教程》. 北京：旅游教育出版社. 1996.陈廷佑. 《英语汉译技巧：跟我学翻译》. 北京：华龄出版社. 1994.陈新. 《英汉文体翻译教程》. 北京：北京大学出版社, 1999.范仲英. 《实用翻译教程》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 1994.冯庆华. 《实用翻译教程（英汉互译）》（增订本）. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2002.古今明. 《英汉翻译基础》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 1997.郭著章、李庆生. 《英汉互译实用教程》（修订本）. 武汉：武汉大学出版社. 1996.郭著章、黄粉保、毛新耕编著. 《文言英译教程》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2008.黄振定. 《英汉互译实践教程》. 长沙：湖南人民出版社. 2007.靳梅琳. 《英汉翻译概要》. 天津：南开大学出版社. 1995.居祖纯. 《汉英语篇翻译》. 北京：清华大学出版社. 1998.居祖纯. 《高级汉英语篇翻译》. 北京：清华大学出版社. 2000.居祖纯. 《新编汉英语篇翻译强化训练》. 北京：清华大学出版社. 2002.柯平. 《英汉与汉英翻译教程》. 北京：北京大学出版社. 1991.李辛. 《实用汉译英手册》. 北京：中国物资出版社. 1993.李运兴. 《英汉语篇翻译》. 北京：清华大学出版社. 1998.刘季春. 《实用翻译教程》. 广州：中山大学出版社. 1996.刘宓庆. 《英汉翻译技能训练手册》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 1987.吕俊、侯向群. 《英汉翻译教程》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2001.吕瑞昌、喻云根、张复星、李嘉祜、张燮泉. 《汉英翻译教程》. 西安：陕西人民出版社. 1983. 彭长江主编. 《英汉－汉英翻译教程》. 长沙：湖南师范大学出版社. 2002.单其昌. 《汉英翻译入门》. 石家庄：河北教育出版社. 1991.申雨平、戴宁. 《实用英汉翻译教程》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 2002.孙万彪、王恩铭. 《高级翻译教程》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2000.孙致礼. 《新编英汉翻译教程》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2003.王宏印. 《英汉翻译综合教程》. 大连：辽宁师范大学出版社. 2002.王治奎主编. 《大学汉英翻译教程》（第四版）. 山东大学出版社. 2005.王治奎主编. 《大学英汉翻译教程》（第四版）. 山东大学出版社. 2005.温秀颖、马红旗、王振平、孙建成. 《英语翻译教程（英汉•汉英）》. 天津：南开大学出版社. 2001.吴冰. 《汉译英口译教程》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社, 1995.许建平. 《英汉互译实践与技巧》. 北京：清华大学出版社. 2000.许建忠. 《实用英汉互译技巧》. 长春：吉林人民出版社. 2006.杨莉藜. 《英汉互译教程》（上、下册）. 开封：河南大学出版社. 1993.曾诚. 《实用汉英翻译教程》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 2002.张蓓. 《汉英时文翻译实践》. 北京：清华大学出版社. 2001.张培基、喻云根、李宗杰、彭谟禹. 《英汉翻译教程》. 上海：上海外语教育出版社. 1983. 朱徽主编. 《汉英翻译教程》. 重庆：重庆大学出版社. 2004.庄绎传. 《英汉翻译简明教程》. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社. 2002.三、国内外英文翻译理论与实践书目Ariel, M. Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge. 1990.Baker, Mona. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge, 1992. Bassnett, Susan & André Lefevere. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1998.Bell, Roger T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London: Longman, 1991. Cao, Xueqin & Gao, E. A Dream of Red Mansions. trans. Yang Hsien-yi & Gladys Yang. Beijing: Foreign Language Press. 1978.Cao, Xueqin & Gao, E. The Story of the Stone. trans. David. Hawkes. New Zealand: Penguin Books Ltd. 1986.Catford, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. (Chinese translation published by Tourism Education Press, 1991)Celce-Murcia, M. & Larson-Freeman, D. The Grammar Book---An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers. 1983.Chafe, W. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic. London/New York: Academic Press. 1976.Chao Yuen Ren. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkley: University of California Press. 1979. Cheng Zhenqiu. My views of C-E translation of political writings, Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 1991.Chomsky, N. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. The Minimalist Program .Cambridge MASS: MIT Press. 1996.Haiman, J. Conditionals are topics. Language. 1978 (54): 564-589.Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London & New York: Longman. 1976.Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold Ltd.1985.Hartwell, P. Open to Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1982.Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman, 1990.Hatim, Basil. Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Devon: University of Exeter Press, 1997.Hewson, Lance & Jacky Martin. Redefining Translation: The Variational Approach. London: Routledge, 1991. Reprinted by World Book Publishing Corp. in 1992.Hickey, Leo. (ed.) The Pragmatics of Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1998. Hodges, J. C. & Whitten, M. E. Harbrace College Handbook. New York: Harbrace Jovanovich. 1982.Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. Grammaticalization. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press , Cambridge University Press. 2001.Kahn, J. E. The Right Word at the Right Time. London: The Reader’s Digest Association. 1985. Kelly, Jeanne and Nathan K. Mao. Fortress Besieged. Indiana: Indiana Univ. Press. 1979. Landers, Clifford E. Literary Translation: A Practical Guide. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2008.Lao, She. Camel Xiangzi. trans. Shi Xiaoqing. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. 1981.Leech,G.N. Style in Fiction. New York: Longman. 1983.Li, C. N. & S. A.Thompson. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Charles N. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic. London/New York: Academic Press, 1976. 457-490.Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice-Hall, 1988. Newmark, Peter. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon, 1982.Nida, Eugene A. Language, Culture and Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1991. (Bilingual edition with Chinese translation published by Inner Mongolia University Press in 1998, also appears in Nida 2001)Nida, Eugene A. The Sociolinguistics of Interlingual Communication. Bruxelles: Les Éditions du Hazard, 1996. (Bilingual edition with Chinese translation published by Inner Mongolia University Press, 1999)Nord, Christiane. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997.Quirk,R.et al. A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman. 1973.Robinson, D. Western Translation Theory: from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Cornwall: St. Jerome Publishing. 2002.Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Revised ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995.Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Swan, M. Practical English Usage. Oxford : Oxford University Press. 1980.Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995. Venuti, L. The Translator’s Invisibility. London & New York: Routledge. 1995.Wilss,W. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Shanghai: Shanghai Language Education Press. 2001.Zeiger, A. Encyclopaedia of English. New York: Arco Publishing Company. 1978.四、学术期刊翻译相关论文举例爱泼斯坦、林戊荪、沈苏儒. 呼吁重视对外宣传中的外语工作. 中国翻译, 2000 (6).蔡春露. 论《木匠的哥特式古屋》叙述的不确定性. 外国文学研究, 2004 (4).蔡春露. 论悲剧《李尔王》中的意象. 辽宁师范大学学报, 2002 (4).丁衡祁. 对外宣传中的英语质量亟待提高. 中国翻译, 2002 (4).丁金国. 汉英对比研究中的理论原则. 外语教学与研究，1996 (3).范敏、陈天祥. 论汉语成语的英译. 山东外语教学，200 (5).封宗颖、邵志洪.英汉第三人称代词深层回指对比与翻译. 外语学刊，2004 (5).冯寿农. 翻译是“异化”, 或是“化异”? 法国研究, 2002 (2).傅似逸. 试论对外宣传材料英译“以语篇为中心”的原则. 外语与外语教学, 2001 (11).高健. 语言个性与翻译. 外国语，1999 (4).关坤英. 朱自清散文的朦胧美——从《荷塘月色》谈起. 北京师范大学学报，1987 (5).郭建中. 翻译中的文化因素：异化与归化. 外国语，1998 (2).郭建中. 汉语歇后语翻译的理论与实践. 中国翻译，1996 (2).韩庆果. “歇后语”一词的英译名及歇后语翻译初探. 外语与外语教学, 2002 (12).何兆熊. 英语人称代词使用中的语义含糊. 外国语. 1986 (4).侯维瑞. 文体研究和翻译. 外语教学与研究，1988 (3).胡密密. 从思维差异看汉英科技文体与科技论文的英译. 中国科技翻译. 2002 (3).胡兆云. 晚清以来Jury、Juror汉译考察与辨误. 外语与外语教学, 2009 (1).胡兆云. 柏拉图、黑格尔灵感论与文学翻译中灵感现象浅析. 外国语言文学, 2003 (3).胡兆云. 从康德的人类“共通感”看异化翻译法. 华南师范大学学报, 2003 (3).胡兆云. 华盛顿交还军权与还权对答翻译探究. 外国语言文学, 2005 (3).胡兆云. 克罗齐表现主义翻译观及其发展浅析. 外语与外语教学, 2003 (5).胡兆云. 论英语和汉语的词汇借用. 山东外语教学, 1998 (3).胡兆云. 论英语学习中的重要输入法—阅读. 山东大学学报, 2000 (增刊).胡兆云. 中英美四大政法文化词语系统与对应翻译策略. 外语与外语教学, 2005 (9).胡兆云. Administration与Government文化语义辨析及其翻译. 外语与外语教学, 2006 (9).胡兆云. 自然语法与书本语法浅论. 山东大学学报, 1995 (3).黄爱华. 文学文体的语言特征及其运作. 浙江大学学报. 1996 (3).黄龙. 古诗文英译脞语. 南京师范大学学报. 1985 (3).黄友义. 坚持“外宣三贴近”原则，处理好外宣翻译中的难点问题. 中国翻译, 2004 (6).纪玉华. 帕尔默文化语言学理论的构建思路. 外国语, 2002 (2).江宛棣、闫昕霞. 翻译是“文化的翻译”——赵启正谈对外传播之中的翻译事业. 对外大传播, 2004 (10).金积令. 汉英词序对比研究——句法结构中的前端重量原则和末端重量原则. 外国语. 1998(1).李正栓. 文化背景与学习风格—中国语境下英语专业学生学习风格调查. 中国外语, 2007(2). 李正栓. 徐忠杰的翻译原则研析. 外语与外语教学, 2005(10).李正栓. 唐诗宋词英译研究：比较与分析. 中国外语, 2005(3).李正栓. 实践、理论、比较：翻译教学的几个重要环节. 河北师范大学学报（教育版）, 2003(4). 李正栓. 忠实对等：汉诗英译的一条重要原则. 外语与外语教学, 2004(8).李正栓. 汉诗英译中的忠实对等原则. 广东外语外贸大学学报, 2004(2).林大津. Meme的翻译. 外语学刊, 2008(10.林大津. 国外英汉对比修辞研究及其启示. 外语教学与研究. 1994 (3).凌云. 汉语类比造词初探. 语言教学与研究, 1999 (2).刘莉. 论法律文体翻译的准确性问题. 西南民族学院学报. 1999 (3).刘全福. 语境分析与褒贬语义取向. 中国科技翻译，1999 (3).刘全福. “批评法”在翻译课教学中的运用，中国翻译，1996 (5).刘全福. 对翻译教材译例的审美性思考与评价. 上海科技翻译，1998 (3).刘全福. 试析我国酒类产品简介英译存在的问题. 上海科技翻译，1997 (2).刘全福. 英汉叹词比较与翻译. 外国语，1996 (4).。
exploring translation theories读后感
在阅读"Exploring Translation Theories"这本书的过程中，我深感翻译理论的复杂性和多元性。
这本书的作者通过清晰简洁的文字，全面且详细地介绍了翻译理论的历史、现状以及各种不同的翻译理论。
首先，这本书让我对翻译理论有了更深入的理解。
从古代的直译、意译之争，到现代的功能翻译理论、生态翻译理论等，作者都进行了深入浅出的阐述。
尤其是对于各种翻译理论的产生和发展，作者都进行了详尽的历史背景分析，这不仅让我理解了翻译理论的来龙去脉，也让我对翻译理论的发展趋势有了更深入的认识。
其次，这本书拓宽了我的翻译理论视野。
在书中，作者不仅介绍了传统的翻译理论，还介绍了许多现代的翻译理论，如功能翻译理论、生态翻译理论等。
这些理论为我提供了新的视角和思考方式，让我在面对翻译问题时能够有更多的思考和选择。
最后，这本书也让我认识到翻译理论的实践意义。
通过对不同翻译理论的学习和理解，我能够更好地指导我的翻译实践。
同时，这本书也让我认识到翻译理论的发展是一个不断探索和创新的过程，只有通过不断的学习和实践，才能不断提高自己的翻译水平。
总的来说，"Exploring Translation Theories"是一本非常值得一读的书。
通过阅读这本书，我不仅对翻译理论有了更深入的理解，也拓宽了我的翻译理论视野。
同时，这本书也让我认识到翻译理论的实践意义，指导我在翻译实践中更好地应用各种翻译理论。
尤金奈达翻译理论概述
语言共性论
• 具有同种的表达力
• “一种语言所能表达的事情，必然能用另一种语言表达 。”
• 人类的共性多于差异，在人类经验和表达方式中，都存 在着一种“共核”（common core）
• “White as snow”（白如雪，雪白）
（1）“White as frost”；
（2）“白如白鹭毛”、“ 白如蘑菇等尤金奈达翻译理论概述
Brief introduction of Eugene Nida
an American linguist, translation theorist
Oklahoma, 1914 Ph.D. degree in
linguistics at University of Michigan American Bible Society (ABS)
1. Conceptions of Functional Equivalence
First put forward in1964．
Emphasis: the functional equivalence of information instead of the direct formal equivalence in translation
奈达翻译散论：
（1）翻译的定义 （2）翻译的学科定位 （3）翻译的过程
奈达翻译散论
（1）翻译的定义 奈达对翻译所下的定义是:“翻译是在接受语中寻找
和原语信息尽可能接近的、自然的对等话语，首 先是意义上的对等，其次才是风格上的对等”。 Translation consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in tems of meaning and secondly in terms of style.
- 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)。
What is the trend of “modern” translation theory?
The focus in translation investigation is shifting from the abstract to the specific, from the deep underlying hypothetical forms to the surface of texts with all their gaps, errors, ambiguities, multiple referents, and ―foreign‖ disorder. These are being analyzed-and not by standards of equivalent/inequivalent, right/wrong, good/bad, and correct/incorrect.
The tower of Babel
And the Lord came down to see the city, and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another‘s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth; and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
1. Historical Overview
When did we have the principle of fidelity or faithfulness? and why? Comment on it. Formal and dynamic equivalence in translation Translation, an art or craft or science? What are Catford and Nida‘s definition of translation?
Historical Overview
Equivalence as a basic concept or even constituent of translation was never really questioned. 解构忠实 Adaptation 变译理论 German school certificate 公司简介译文文本评析 学位证书翻译
Translation Theories
夏家驷 2009－2－9 Email: xiajiasi@
Some basic ideas of translation
The tower of Babel
The tower of Babel
S: (n) Tower of Babel, Babel ((Genesis 11:111) a tower built by Noah's descendants (probably in Babylon) who intended it to reach up to heaven; God foiled them by confusing their language so they could no longer understand one another) (foiled :disappointed expectations and thwarted ambitions) S: (n) babel (a confusion of voices and other sounds)
Three Areas of Translation
What three areas Roman Jakobson breaks into in contemporary translation theory?
Three Areas of Translation
Intralingual translation语内翻译a rewording of signs in one language with signs from the same language. Interlingual translation语间翻译the interpretation of signs in one language with signs from another language. Intersemiotic translation符间翻译the transfer(transmutation) of the signs in one language to non-verbal sign systems (from language into art or music).
Historical Overview
Justa Holz-Manttari Message transmitters(信息传递者）, which consist of textual material combined with other media such as pictures, sounds and body movements. She places special emphasis on the actional aspects of the translation process, analyzing the roles of the participants (initiator(行为发起者）, translator, user, message receiver) and the situational conditions (time, place, medium) in which their activities take place.
What is your comment on the example given in the part of introduction? Future professional translators must be trained not only to produce ―good‖ (that is, functional) translations satisfying their customers‘ needs, but also to find good arguments to defend their products against unjustified criticism from clients and users.
The tower of Babel
Chapter 11 And the whole earth was one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another. Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly, and they had brick for stone, and slime泥浆had they for mortar.灰浆 And they said , Go to, let us build a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
What is the situation of translation in China now? (An International and Interdisciplinary ) How do you interpret ―TRANASLATE OR DIE‖? p7
Introduction
Historical Overview
Functionalist methodology in translator training Honig and Kussaul The maxim of the necessary degree of precision, which seems to be in line with Grice‘s well known conversational maxims准则 of relevance and quantity. Try to reproduce just that semantic feature or just those features which is/are relevant in a given context with regard to the function of your translation. Think-aloud-protocols大声思维