翻译研究入门3.2-3.4奈达翻译科学、纽马克、科勒(柯勒)
奈达纽马克翻译对比
奈达纽马克翻译对比为了达到相似的反应, 动态对等要求对译文进行相应的调整以满足不同接受者的要求。
对于对源语信息一无所知的读者, 面对晦涩难懂的翻译腔, 就如同看天书一般。
所以要完成翻译的任务, 即再现并传递信息,奈达的翻译理论是其在翻译《圣经》过程中总结而来, , 那么要有效地检验译文质量, 就必须看原文与译文接受者的反应是否一致。
因此奈达的翻译理论对其翻译实践来说是非常行之有效的。
纽马克的翻译理论核心是语义翻译和交际翻译。
这一理论是在翻译界长期围绕着直译和意译争论不休的奈达和纽马克相比较, 奈达的翻译理论过于集中在解决译文的可懂性和交际性问题上, 从而限制了自己的适用范围。
在翻译《圣经》以及类似的以信息或呼唤功能为主的原作时, 强调译文的可懂性是很有道理的。
但如果用于文学翻译, 则势必导致语言的简单化, 形式上的非文学化, 失去文学应有的魅力。
而纽马克在阐述具体使用哪种翻译方法时指出, 要视不同的文本类型来定。
他把文本分为表达功能、信息功能和呼唤功能。
以表达功能为主的文本中,如文学作品、私人信件等, 其核心是表情达意, 语言形式和内容同等重要, 应主要采用语义翻译; 以信息功能为主的文本, 如教科书、学术论文等, 其核心是语言之外的现实世界, 应采用交际法; 以呼唤功能为主的文本, 如通知、广告等, 其核心是号召读者去行动, 去思考, 应采用交际法。
因此不难看出, 纽马克的翻译理论适用范围更广。
三、不断发展的理论奈达和纽马克是名副其实的理论大家。
在自身的翻译实践和理论界的评论中, 他们不断地改进和完善着自己的理论。
奈达在最初阐释动态对等时, 突出了“内容为主, 形式为次”的思想。
这引起了人们的误解, 认为翻译只是翻译内容, 不必顾及语言表达形式。
因此各种各样的自由译都被冠以动态对等。
为此, 他在《从一种语言到另一种语言: 论圣经翻译中的功能对等》一书中, 把“动态对等”改为“功能对等”。
在功能对等中, 奈达对“信息”作了进一步的界定, 声明信息不仅包括思想内容, 还包括语言形式。
翻译理论学习知识.docx
《翻译理论与实践》考试理论部分复习提纲一、翻译定义：1.张培基——翻译是用一种语言把另一种语言所表达的思维内容准确而完整地重新表达出来的语言活动。
3.刘宓庆——翻译的实质是语际的意义转换。
4.王克非——翻译是将一种语言文字所蕴含的意思用另一种语言文字表达出来的文化活动。
5.泰特勒——好的翻译应该是把原作的长处完全地移注到另一种语言，以使译入语所属国家的本地人能明白地领悟、强烈地感受，如同使用原作语言的人所领悟、所感受的一样。
6.费道罗夫——翻译就是用一种语言把另一种语言在内容与形式不可分割的统一中所业已表达出来的东西准确而完全地表达出来。
7. 卡特福德——翻译的定义也可以这样说：把一种语言（Source Language）中的篇章材料用另一种语言（Target Language）中的篇章材料来加以代替。
8.奈达——翻译就是在译入语中再现与原语信息最切近的自然对等物，首先就意义而言，其次就是文体而言。
“ Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.” ---Eugene Nida纽马克——通常（虽然不能说总是如此），翻译就是把一个文本的意义按作者所想的方式移译入另一种文字（语言）。
“ Translation is a craft consisting in the attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in one language by the same message and/or statement in another language”. --- Peter Newmark10. “ Translation is the expression in one language (or target language 译入语 ) of what has been expressed in another language (source language 原语), preserving semantic and stylistic equivalences.” --- Dubois12.13.Translation or translating is a communicative activity or dynamic process in which the translator makes great effort to thoroughly comprehend a written message or text in the source language and works very hard to achieve an adequate or an almost identical reproduction in the target language version of the written source language message or text.二、翻译标准1.翻译的标准概括为言简意赅的四个字：“忠实（faithfulness）、通顺（ smoothness）”。
尤金·奈达和彼得·纽马克的翻译理论研究
尤金·奈达和彼得·纽马克的翻译理论研究尤金·奈达和彼得·纽马克是西方两位杰出的翻译理论家。
将从他们的研究方法，对可译性的认识等六个方面梳理比较两人的翻译理论，以期对两住大师有个深刻的认识。
标签：翻译；动态对等；语义翻译和交际翻译尤金·奈达(Eugine A·Nida，1914－)是著名的美国翻译理论家，当代西方翻译理论语言学派的创始人之一。
他的翻译思想从20世纪80年代初开始介绍到中国大陆，在国内译界曾一度形成“言必称奈达”的局面。
可以说，“它是旗帜位置美国翻译理论最著名的代表，也是当代整个西方翻译理论界最具影响的人物之一。
”彼得·纽马克(PeterNewmark，1916－)是英国当代翻译家，著名的翻译理论家。
他潜心研究西方翻译的过去和现在，坦诚各家之言，广泛论述翻译与其他学科的关系，并在此基础上提出自己的见解。
八十年代初，王宗炎教授和刘重德教授分别把纽马克的《翻译理论和技巧》介绍到中国，其后二十多年，其翻译思想不断的被译介列国内。
同作为颇具影响的翻译理论家，笔者认为有必要对两人的翻译思想进行一番梳理与比较。
本文将从他们的研究方法，关于可译性的认识等六个方面进行探讨。
1关于研究方法无论是奈达还是纽马克，他们从事翻译研究的研究方法是一致的，即他们的研究都摆脱了评点式、印象式的传统翻译研究的束缚，本着对语言结构研究的科学态度，运用现代语言学的理论来分析和解决翻译中的具体问题。
奈达认为，“最可靠的方法是语言学的方法，因为它可以描述分析不同语言的相应信息间的关系”。
他的翻译理论中创造性地运用了乔姆斯基的转换生成语法理论，所指意义与内涵意义理论。
同时他的动态对等和读者反映理论也使人感受到有文艺理论中阐释学和接受美学的影子。
而纽马克坚持认为翻译理论”源于比较语言学，在语言学的范畴内，主要涉及语义学。
所有语义学的问题都与翻译理论有关”。
因此他将格语法，文体论，话语分析以及符号学理论融入了翻译研究。
奈达诺德与纽马克翻译理论之比较
奈达诺德与纽马克翻译理论之比较奈达，诺德和纽马克是译界卓有成就的翻译理论家，他们从不同的角度对翻译提出了不同的观点和看法，虽然探索的途径不同，表达方式各异，但是有些基本原理是一致的，既可以互通，又可以互相否定还可以互相补充，值得比较研究。
一、翻译定义比较奈达指出：“所谓翻译就是指从语义到语体，在译语中用最贴近而又最自然的对等语再现源语的信息，首先是意义上的对等，其次是风格上的对等。
”纽马克对翻译下了这样的定义：“翻译就是把文本的意义按照原作者所意想的方式译入另一种语言。
”而诺德作为目的论的代表人物则认为：“翻译是一种有目的的行为，在翻译中要遵循功能+忠诚的原则。
”在这里可以看出奈达是从语义学和信息论出发，强调翻译的交际功能；纽马克强调的是“文本意义”；诺德则是从目的论的角度提出对翻译的看法。
从定义上看，奈达和纽马克都是以忠实原作为前提，但在翻译效果上，侧重点是反向的。
诺德的功能派是从认得行为理论的角度出发，视翻译为跨文化的交际活动，原文只是信息的提供者。
二、理论核心比较（一）奈达的“功能对等”理论在奈达看来，翻译的本质和任务是用译语再现源语信息，翻译的方法是使用最贴近，而又最自然的对等语。
奈达认为信息对等优于形式对立，主张从译文接受者角度，而不是译文形式看待翻译，要实现动态对等，后来将动态对等改为功能对等。
功能对等提出了一个全新的翻译原则，把原文和译文读者的感受是否相同作为衡量译文的标准。
（二）诺德的“功能+忠诚”原则诺德作为第二代目的论者，对原来的目的论进行了修正，提出了功能+忠诚的原则。
“忠诚”指的是目的语与原作者的意图一致，属于一种人际范畴，指人与人之间的社会关系。
忠诚原则限制了某一原文的译文功能范围，增加了译者与客户之间对翻译任务的商议，纠正了激进功能主义的倾向，进一步完善了目的论。
（三）纽马克的“语义翻译”和“交际翻译” 纽马克认为，在众多翻译方法中，只有交际翻译和语义翻译能够做到准确和简练。
★当代西方翻译理论流派评述及代表人物
翻译学必读1语文和诠释学派二十世纪之前的翻译理论被纽马克（1981）称为翻译研究的‘前语言学时期’，人们围绕‘word-for-word’和‘sense-for-sense’ 展开激烈的讨论，核心是‘忠实’，‘神似’和‘真理’。
典型的代表有John Dryden, Tytler等，而Barnard, Steiner等人则是在他们的基础上进一步发展。
2语言学派Jacobson(1959)提出意义对等的问题，随后的二十多当年，学界围绕这个问题进行了研究。
奈达（1969）采取了转换语法模式，运用“科学（奈达语）”的方法来分析他翻译《圣经》过程中的意义处理问题。
奈达提出的形式对等说、动态对等说和等效原则都是将注意力集中在受众一方。
纽马克信奉的是语义翻译和交际翻译，即重视翻译中的语义和交际方面。
3话语分析Discourse Analysis（critical discourse analysis批评话语分析functional discourse analysis功能语篇分析Discourse analysis theory话语分析理论Discourse Analysis for Interpreters翻译专业演说分析Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis语用学positive discourse analysis积极话语分析rhetorical or discourse analysis语篇分析Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis语用学Mediated discourse analysis中介话语分析二十世纪七十年代到九十年代，作为应用语言学领域的一个分支，话语分析经历了产生和发展壮大的过程，其理论背景来自（韩礼德）的系统功能语法。
今天，话语分析的方法已经逐步运用到翻译研究中。
House(1997)提出的翻译质量模型就是基于韩礼德的理论，他吸收了其中的语域分析方法；Baker(1992) 则为培养译员提供了话语分析和语用分析的范本；Hatim 和 Mason(1997)将语域研究拓展到语用和符号学角度4目的学派目的学派于二十世纪七、八十年代在德国兴起，是从静态的语言学、语言类型学中剥离出来的。
翻译研究入门3.2-3.4奈达翻译科学、纽马克、科勒(柯勒)
近核心句的表达形式为孔子说:求学之人在家应 该孝敬父母,在外读书要尊敬师长,说话要谨慎,做 事要讲究信用,要热爱群众,多与仁德之人交往。 只有做 到这些,才有资格学习文化知识。”
传 译 重 组 后 的 译 文 为 : The master of
Confucius said, “a student when at home, should be filial, and when at school, respectful to his teachers and elders. He should be earnest in remark and truthful in behavior ， he should show his love to all people, and cultivate the friendship with the kind. If only he could put all those features into practice, he would be qualified to learn the science and knowledge.”
说明各个核心句子的关系
A.核心句3修饰1的受事者way,核 心句2修饰核心句3实施者
B.核心句5与7是并列关系,核心句 6是5的目的
核 心 句 5 和 7 是 4 的 所 指 , 指 this land
C.核心句1和4是对比关系
连接各个核心句，重述为近核心句表达形式
Once, this land barred the way of travelers who was weary, while now this land becomes magical and wonderful and is a good land for travelers to spend their summer and winter vacations.
奈达翻译理论研究 第一章 笔记
奈达翻译理论研究A Study on Nida’s Translation Theory 马会娟著English AbstractThis book makes a systematic research on Nida’s translation theory, clarify some misunderstandings concerning his theory, disclose its true nature and explore its validity and limitations in literary translations. Examples from Today’s English V ersion and Today’s Chinese V ersion of the Bible, which were translated, following Nida’s translation theory, demonstrate that Nida’s theory, contrary to some popular wrong assumptions, is applicable to translation practice between foreign languages and Chinese. A comparative study of Nida’s theory and Jin Di’s theory is made to reveal the similarities and differences between the two theories, and the reasons for their discrepancies are also explored. Examples from Jin’s Chinese translation of Ulysses are examined against the principle of “equivalent effect”. This book also explores the limitations of Nida’s theory in literary translation, pointing out that his theory fails to address the issue of transference of aesthetic values of literary work into another language. Attempts have been made to amend Nida’s theory in respect of transferring aesthetic values of literary work by means of “formal aesthetic markers”and “non-formal aesthetic markers”, with aim of marking it more suitable for literary translation between Chinese and English.CHAPTER ONE Introduction1.1 Reasons for further research on Nida’s translation theoryHis works on translation set off the study of modern translation as an academic field ( Snell—Hornby, Heylen, Baker)Before his theory was introduced into China in the 1980s, people mainly focused attention on traditional Chinese theories, especially Y an Fu’sthree—character principle of translation: faithfulness, smoothness and elegance.Since Nida’s theory was grounded solidly on contemporary developments of linguistics, communication theory, information theory, semiotics andanthropology, Chinese translation scholars took great interest in his theory.Chang Namfung summarizes 4 kinds of misunderstandings regarding Nida’s theory in China:1)“Dynamic equivalence” is only an ideal translation ctiterion2)Nida’s theory is unfit to guide translation practice between Chinese andEnglish because it grows out of translation experience amongIndo—European language3)Nida’s takes “reader’s response” as a translation criterion in evaluatingtranslation4)Nida doesn’t respect the cultural factors in the source language and hismaintenance of complete naturalization in translating is a kind ofcultural hegemonism.The term “equivalence” in Nida’s theory never means “identical”, but only “substantially the same”.“dynamic equivalence” is founded on information theory, and is has on directrelationship with “reception aesthetics” or “reader-response theory” at all.Nida’s discussion about kernels and deep structures is based on semantic level while Chomsky focuses on syntactical level.Nida’s “science of translation” is totally different from the debates of the debate of whether “translation is a science or an art” occurring among some Chinese scholars. When Nida talks about “science of translation”, what he means is that he tends to “deal with the process of translation in a scientific manner”, drawing on the theoriesof linguistics, information and communication, etc.1.2 A profile of Nida1.2.3 His academic contributions to modern linguistics and translationEric M. North, the former General Secretary of the American Bible Society of the American Bible society, divides Nida’s academic activity into 4 phases on his writings in chronological order:1)the phase of descriptive linguistics, 1943—19512)the phase of cross—cultural communication. 1952—19603)the translation phase, 1961—19734)the semantic phase, 1974—Message and Mission was the most significant book of the second phase. Gentzler suggested that it was in this book that Nida first outlined his translation theory. This book marked the beginning of the third phase.In the third phase, in the book, Toward a Science of Translating, Nida firsta dvanced the proposition of “dynamic equivalence”, and the three-stage model of the translation process：“analysis, transfer and restructuring”. It is commonly agreed that Toward a Science of Translating best summarizes the various aspects of his translation theory.For Nida, translating means translating meaning.The most representative book of this phase was From One Language to Another. In this book, Nida not only further explored the issues of meaning of adopting a sociosemiotics approach, but substituted “functional equivalence” for “dynamic equivalence” just to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.1.3 A survey of Nida’s translation theoryWe will review Nida’s translation theory from two important aspects:1)the scientific study of translating2)the principle of “ dynamic equivalence”1.3.1 Nida’s scientific study of translating“Science of translating” means “for just as linguistics may be classified as a descriptive science, so the transference of a message from one language to another is likewise a valid subject for scientific description. He suggests that it is more effective to transfer the meaning from the source language to the receptor language on the kernel lever, because on this lever the linguistic meaning of the original test is structurally the simplest and semantically most evident.Nida advances a three-step translation process: ○1to analyze source-languageexpressions in terms of basic kernel sentences ○2to transform the kernel forms of the source language into the equivalent kernel forms of the receptor language ○3to transform the kernel utterances of the receptor language into the stylistically appropriate expressionThis process of translating helps the translator consciously avoid literal translation.The principle of “dynamic equivalence” (which was later modified into “functional equivalence”) has a scientific basis as well. It is solidly founded on information theory or communication theory.Nida sees translation as a communication event.Nida holds that in translating, the first thing one should do is to understand thoroughly the meaning of the source text. Inadequate understanding of the original text is the major cause for failures in translation. In describing referential meaning of words or phrases, he uses various techniques of semantic theories such as chain analysis, hierarchical analysis and componential analysis.It is evident that Nida’s theory of translation is not merely linguistic—oriented, but sociolinguistic—oriented.1.3.2 The principle of dynamic equivalenceTranslating consists in producing in the receptor language the closet natural equivalent to the message of the source language, first in meaning and secondly in style.In his 1969 textbook The Theory and Practice of Translation, “dynamic equivalence” is defined “in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language”.In From One Language to Another, the expression “dynamic equivalence” is superseded by “functional equivalence”. The substitution of “functional equivalence”is just to stress the concept of function and to avoid misunderstandings of the term “dynamic”.In Language, Culture and Translation, “functional equivalence” is further divided into categories on two levels: the minimal level and the maximal level.The minimal level is defined as “the readers of a translated text should be able to comprehend in to the point that they can conceive of how the original readers of the text must have understood and appreciated it”. The maximal level is stated as “the essentially the same manner as the original readers did”.In Nida’s theory, “dynamic equivalence” is defined with “receptors’ response”as its nature.Nida’s concept of translating shifts from “the form of message” to “the response of the receptor”.In Nida’s view, when determining whether a translation is faithful to the original text or not, the critic should not compare the formal structures between the source text and its translation, but compare the “receptors’ response”. If he finds that the the reader in the receptor language understands and appreciates the translated text in essentially the same manner and to the same degree as the reader inthe source language did, such a translation can be evaluated as a dynamic equivalent translation.Nida’s theory of “reader s’ response” emphasizes the importance of the acceptance of a translated text by the intended reader in the receptor language, and avoids the subjective evaluation of the critic.Nida’s theory has practical significance for literary translation in some aspects, but it is a fact that it fails to address the issue of transferring aesthetic values of literary work in literary translation.The inadequacy of Nida’s theory for literary translation is made manifest in 3 aspects: ○1Nida pays little attention to the transference of style in his translation process: ○2Nida’s discussion of style is very general and superficial: ○3Nida’s functional approach to style does not provide effective means to transfer aesthetic values of literary work.1.4 The guiding principles of the researchThe task of translation theory is to study translation problems, no translation problems, no translation theory (Newmark 1998).1.5 The methodological approachDifferent views of translation are determined by different views of language and culture.In Nida’s view, each language has its own genius, and there are no such things as superior or inferior languages. Anything that can be said in one language can be said in another, and human languages have more in common than in difference. It is this view of language that provides the theoretical basis for his belief in translatability.Nida insists that language and culture are closely related. Language is a part of culture, and the meaning of word or phrase cannot be determined out of linguistic and cultural contexts.。
奈达和纽马克翻译理论对比的初探
奈达和纽马克翻译理论对比的初探奈达和纽马克是翻译领域内两位杰出的学者，他们对翻译理论的贡献也是不容忽视的。
而在翻译理论方面，奈达和纽马克也有很多的相似和不同之处。
本文将对奈达和纽马克的翻译理论进行对比，从中探讨他们的差异性和相同之处。
奈达和纽马克的相似之处奈达的翻译理论强调语文之间的文化差异性，同时也重视译者个人的文化背景和经验等因素。
纽马克也提出了类似的翻译理论，强调跨文化交流的重要性，认为翻译的过程中要考虑目的语族的文化因素，译者要对源语言和目的语言背后的文化背景有深入的了解。
奈达和纽马克的这一观点是类似的，都认为翻译不仅仅是语言的转化，更是跨文化的交流，必须要考虑到文化差异性。
奈达和纽马克的不同之处除了相似之处，奈达和纽马克的翻译理论上也有不少的不同点。
奈达强调的是文字的翻译，注重的是语言的精准性和准确性，而他认为语言的翻译不仅仅是词语的转化，更是语境的转化，要考虑到词语在不同语境下的意义和含义，因此他提出了“语用”翻译理论。
纽马克则注重的是翻译的话语和交流效果，他认为翻译是一种重要的社会行为，其目的是为了促进跨文化的交流，因此他强调“功能”翻译理论。
纽马克认为话语的意义建立在特定的社会背景和话语交际情境下，而翻译应该把原文的话语和目的语的话语交际归属联系起来，以实现有效的翻译交流。
奈达和纽马克的优点和缺点奈达的“语用”翻译理论强调语境的重要性，认为翻译不仅仅是单词的转化，更是语境的转化，这样可以使翻译更准确更精确。
但是，奈达的这一理论有时候会导致翻译过于依赖原文语境，忽略了翻译的实际效果。
纽马克的“功能”翻译理论强调的是译文的效果，重视翻译的言语交际效果。
这种理论可以确保翻译品质更加高效，但有时候难以保持原文的准确性。
结论在对奈达和纽马克的翻译理论进行比较研究后，可以看出两位学者的翻译理论都有其独到之处，也有其不足之处。
从实际翻译应用的角度来看，应该综合运用两种理论，尤其是在跨文化的翻译领域中，不能仅仅关注语言的准确性和语用的完美性而忽略了言语交际的效果。
奈达与纽马克翻译理论比较
动态对等/功能对等
指翻译时不求文字表面的死板对应，而要在 两种语言间达成功能上的对等，是用最切近、 自然和对等的语言从语义到文体再现源语的 信息。 翻译不仅是词汇意义上的对等，还包 括语义、风格和文体的对等，翻译传达的信 息既有表层词汇信息，也有深层的文化信息.
动态对等/功能对等
奈达功能对等理论认为，在翻译过程中，为了 达到原文本与译本功能对等，可以采取一定的 方式弥补或调整。奈达还认为功能对等不是严 格意义上的逐字或逐句对等。“功能对等”理 论是一种比较客观的等效翻译理论，它追求译 文的效果，强调译文读者对译文的反应要基本 上与原文读者对原文的反应一致，并把这一点 作为评价译文好环的标准.
交际翻译
纽马克承认话语的主要功能是交际, 正如学外 语的主要目的也是为了用来交际, 而不是用来 思考, 因此可以说交际翻译是一种使用更广泛 的翻译方法, 它更能为读者提供信息, 给他们以 劝告或号召他们行动。
语义翻译
指在译入语语义和句法结构允许的可能准确地 再现原文上下文意义及保持原作的语言特色和 独特的表达方式 。
信息论例子
译文：“你打算以后要到什么地方去? 去找你那亲爱 的丈夫吗?”
她听了这种难堪的话，简直受不了。 “哦— — 我哪儿知道!”她辛酸激愤地说。“我还有丈
夫吗?” “实在不错，没有丈夫— — 照你那种意思，一点儿不
错，没有丈夫。不过你虽然没有丈夫，你可有朋友； 我已经打定了主意，非让你过个舒服日子不可，不管 你自己的意思怎么样。你待会儿回到家里，就能看见 我给你送去的那些东西了。
结语
(1)在形式与内容的问题上, 奈达和纽马克的观点 既有相同之处, 也存在明显的差别
奈达认为:内容优先于 形式的原则适合翻译 所有的文本.
翻译理论书籍
翻译理论书籍翻译理论是研究翻译的基本原则、方法和规律的学科。
作为翻译工作者，熟悉翻译理论对于提高翻译质量、提升个人素质非常重要。
以下是一些推荐的翻译理论书籍。
1. 《翻译研究概论》(An Introduction to Translation Studies) - Jeremy Munday这本书是一本广泛使用的翻译理论教材。
它介绍了翻译研究的基本概念、发展历程、不同的研究方向和方法。
作者还讨论了翻译的社会和文化影响，对于理解翻译的多重层面具有很大的帮助。
2. 《翻译研究中的问题与变革》(Translation Studies: Questions and Answers) - Gideon Toury这本书集中讨论了翻译研究中的一些重要问题，如翻译的定义、翻译的社会角色、译者的角色和责任等。
作者还探讨了翻译研究从传统模式到更现代的方法和理论的转变。
这本书对于思考翻译的本质和重要性很有帮助。
3. 《翻译研究的非西方视角》(Translation Studies from Non-Western Perspectives) - Kobus Marais这本书通过介绍一系列非西方的翻译研究案例，探讨了不同文化对翻译的理解和实践。
作者讨论了翻译在非西方文化中的重要性以及与西方翻译理论的关系。
这本书展示了全球翻译研究的多样性和复杂性。
4. 《翻译素描》(Translation: A Very Short Introduction) -Matthew Reynolds这本书是一本简明的介绍翻译的入门读物。
作者阐述了翻译的基本原则和技巧，并且用生动的例子解释了各种翻译问题和挑战。
这本适合没有太多翻译背景的读者，对于理解翻译的基本概念很有帮助。
5. 《翻译研究手册》(The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies) - Carmen Millán and Francesca Bartrina这本手册提供了最新的翻译研究领域的综合性指导，包括各种不同的翻译理论和研究方法，以及研究中的关键主题。
《翻译研究入门》--第一章缩写--中英
第一单元Main issues of translation studiesThrough out history, it can be seen that the practice of translating is long established. Yet the study of translation as an academic subject has only really begun in the past fifty years and it developed into an academic discipline only in the second half of the twentieth century. Before that, translation had normally been merely an element of language learning in modern language courses. Besides, it is also studied as part of comparative literature, translation ‘workshops’and contrastive linguistics courses. The turning point happened when James S. Holmes, in his ‘The name and nature of translation studies’, proposed both a name and a structure for translation studies. In this seminal paper, Holmes crucially puts forward an overall framework, describing what translation studies covers, which makes it an important paper in the delineation of the potential of translation studies.The surge in translation studies since the 1970s has been different areas of Holmes’s map come to the fore. Contrastive analysis has fallen by the wayside. The late 1970s and the 1980s also saw the rise of a descriptive approach that had its origins in comparative literature and Russian Formalism. Afterwards, the 1990s saw the incorporation of new schools and concepts.This chapter also examines two very visible ways in which translation studies has become more prominent. First, there has been a proliferation of specialized translating and interpreting courses at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. In addition, the 1990s also saw a proliferation of conferences, books and journals on translation in many languages.For years, the practice of translation was considered to be derivative and secondary, an attitude the inevitably devalued any academic study of the activity. Now after much neglect and repression, translation studies have become well established. It is making swift advances worldwide, although not without a hint of trepidation. Translation and translation studies often continue to take place within the context of modern language departments, and the practice of translation is still often denied parity with other academic research.The interrelated branches of theoretical, descriptive and applied translation studies have structured much recent research and have assisted in bridging the gulf that had grown between the theory and practice of translation. Translation studies cover an extremely wide field, in which a considerable number of scholars and practitioners are active. Many translators have entered the area from the starting point of more traditional disciplines.译文: 纵观历史，翻译实践由来已久。
奈达和纽马克翻译理论对比
奈达和纽马克翻译理论对比在翻译理论的领域中，有许多重要的理论家提供了不同的翻译方法和策略。
奈达和纽马克是其中最著名的两位理论家。
他们在翻译领域中做出了杰出的贡献，并且影响了现代翻译理论和实践。
本文旨在比较和分析奈达和纽马克的翻译理论和方法，探讨它们的异同以及它们可以为翻译实践和教育带来的启示。
一、奈达的翻译理论奈达是20世纪最著名的翻译理论家之一。
他认为翻译应该是一个文化的交流过程，而非简单的语言转换或词语的替换。
他主张翻译应该注重跨文化交际的效果，即传达源语言意义的同时，也要保持目标语的文化和风格特征。
他建立了“动态对等”和“跨文化适应”等重要翻译概念。
他认为翻译是一种在不同文化之间进行的交互作用，翻译过程应该尊重源语言和目标语言的文化特征，避免出现过度文化低头和过度文化抬头的现象，形成恰当的文化平衡。
二、纽马克的翻译理论纽马克提出的“功能翻译”理论反对了奈达的“动态对等”和“跨文化适应”理论。
他认为翻译是一种语言功能转换，不需要考虑文化差异。
他提倡翻译需要满足目的语文化环境的语用需求，并通过翻译来达成源语和目标语之间的交际目的。
他强调翻译需要注重语言的功能、规范和习惯用法，而不是纠缠于语言的形式和词汇的对应关系。
三、奈达和纽马克的翻译理论比较两位理论家的观点存在显著的区别。
首先，他们对翻译对象的认识不同。
奈达认为翻译应该是跨文化交际，注重文化因素、词汇的多义性。
而纽马克则认为翻译是语言功能转换，更注重语用环境。
其次，两位理论家在语言层面上的关注点不同。
奈达主张翻译是跨文化交际，强调译文的文化因素，而纽马克则更加注重翻译所需的语言功能、规范和习惯用法。
四、奈达和纽马克翻译理论给翻译实践和教育带来的启示奈达和纽马克的翻译理论都带来了对翻译研究和实践的启示。
从奈达的理论中我们可以看出，翻译应该是一种双向的文化交流，尊重源语和目标语的文化特征。
因此，在实践中，中译英或英译中时，译者应该注重文化差异和语言风格的不同。
文学研究-奈达翻译理论研究 第一章 笔记
奈达翻译理论研究第一章笔记奈达翻译理论研究A Study on Nida’s Translation Theory 马会娟著English AbstractThis book makes a systematic research on Nida’s translation theory, clarify some misunderstandings concerning his theory, disclose its true nature and explore its validity and limitations in literary translations. Examples from Today’s English V ersion and Today’s Chinese V ersion of the Bible, which were translated, following Nida’s translation theory, demonstrate that Nida’s theory, contrary to some popular wrong assumptions, is applicable to translation practice between foreign languages and Chinese. A comparative study of Nida’s theory and Jin Di’s theory is made to reveal the similarities and differences between the two theories, and the reasons for their discrepancies are also explored. Examples from Jin’s Chinese translation of Ulysses are examined against the principle of “equivalent effect”. This book also explores the limitations of Nida’s theory in literary translation, pointing out that his theory fails to address the issue of transference of aesthetic values of literary work into another language. Attempts have been made to amend Nida’s theory in respect of transferring aesthetic values of literary work by means of “formal aesthetic markers”and “non-formal aesthetic markers”, with aim of marking it more suitable for literary translation between Chinese and English.CHAPTER ONE Introduction1.1 Reasons for further research on Nida’s translation theoryHis works on translation set off the study of modern translation as an academic field ( Snell—Hornby, Heylen, Baker)Before his theory was introduced into China in the 1980s, people mainly focused attention on traditional Chinese theories, especially Y an Fu’sthree—character principle of translation: faithfulness, smoothness and elegance. Since Nida’s theory was grounded solidly on contemporary developments of linguistics, communication theory, information theory, semiotics and anthropology, Chinese translation scholars took great interest in his theory.Chang Namfung summarizes 4 kinds of misunderstandings regarding Nida’s theory in China:1)“Dynamic equivalence” is only an ideal translation ctiterion2)Nida’s theory is unfit to guide translation practice between Chinese andEnglish because it grows out of translation experience amongIndo—European language3)Nida’s takes “reader’s response” as a translation criterion in evaluating translation4)Nida doesn’t respect the cultural factors in the source language and his maintenance of complete naturalization in translating is a kind ofcultural hegemonism.The term “equivalence” in Nida’s theory never means “identical”, but only “substantially the same”.“dynamic equivalence” is founded on information theory, and is has on direct relationship with “reception aesthetics” or “reader-response theory” at all.Nida’s discussion about kernels and deep structures is based on semantic level while Chomsky focuses on syntactical level.Nida’s “science of translation” is totally different from the debates of the debate of whether “translation is a science or an art” occurring among some Chinese scholars. When Nida talks about “science of translation”, what he means is that he tends to “deal with the process of translation in a scientific manner”, drawing on the theories of linguistics, information and communication, etc.1.2 A profile of Nida1.2.3 His academic contributions to modern linguistics and translationEric M. North, the former General Secretary of the American Bible Society of the American Bible society, divides Nida’s academic activity into 4 phases on his writings in chronological order:1)the phase of descriptive linguistics, 1943—19512)the phase of cross—cultural communication. 1952—19603)the translation phase, 1961—19734)the semantic phase, 1974—Message and Mission was the most significant book of the second phase. Gentzler suggested that it was in this book that Nida first outlined his translation theory. This book marked the beginning of the third phase.In the third phase, in the book, Toward a Science of Translating, Nida firsta dvanced the proposition of “dynamic equivalence”, and the three-stage model of the translation process：“analysis, transfer and restructuring”. It is commonly agreedthat Toward a Science of Translating best summarizes the various aspects of his translation theory.For Nida, translating means translating meaning.The most representative book of this phase was From One Language to Another. In this book, Nida not only further explored the issues of meaning of adopting a sociosemiotics approach, but substituted “functional equivalence” for “dynamic equivalence” just to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.1.3 A survey of Nida’s translation theoryWe will review Nida’s translation theory from two important aspects:1)the scientific study of translating2)the principle of “ dynamic equivalence”1.3.1 Nida’s scientific study of translating“Science of translating” means “for just as linguistics may be classified as a descriptive science, so the transference of a message from one language to another is likewise a valid subject for scientific description. He suggests that it is more effective to transfer the meaning from the source language to the receptor language on the kernel lever, because on this lever the linguistic meaning of the original test is structurally the simplest and semantically most evident.Nida advances a three-step translation process: ○1to analyze source-language expressions in terms of basic kernel sentences ○2to transform the kernel forms of the source language into the equivalent kernel forms of the receptor language ○3to transform the kernel utterances of the receptor language into the stylistically appropriate expressionThis process of translating helps the translator consciously avoid literal translation. The principle of “dynamic equivalence” (which was later modified into “functional equivalence”) has a scientific basis as well. It is solidly founded on information theory or communication theory.Nida sees translation as a communication event.Nida holds that in translating, the first thing one should do is to understand thoroughly the meaning of the source text. Inadequate understanding of the original text is the major cause for failures in translation. In describing referential meaning of words or phrases, he uses various techniques of semantic theories such as chain analysis, hierarchical analysis and componential analysis.It is evident that Nida’s theory of translation is not merely linguistic—oriented, butsociolinguistic—oriented.1.3.2 The principle of dynamic equivalenceTranslating consists in producing in the receptor language the closet natural equivalent to the message of the source language, first in meaning and secondly in style.In his 1969 textbook The Theory and Practice of Translation, “dynamic equivalence” is defined “in terms of the degree to which the receptors of the message in the receptor language respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language”.In From One Language to Another, the expression “dynamic equivalence” is superseded by “functional equivalence”. The substitution of “functional equivalence”is just to stress the concept of function and to avoid misunderstandings of the term “dynamic”.In Language, Culture and Translation, “functional equivalence” is further divided into categories on two levels: the minimal level and the maximal level.The minimal level is defined as “the readers of a translated text should be able to comprehend in to the point that they can conceive of how the original readers of the text must have understood and appreciated it”. The maximal level is stated as “the essentially the same manner as the original readers did”.In Nida’s theory, “dynamic equivalence” is defined with “receptors’ response”as its nature.Nida’s concept of translating shifts from “the form of message” to “the response of the receptor”.In Nida’s view, when determining whether a translation is faithful to the original text or not, the critic should not compare the formal structures between the source text and its translation, but compare the “receptors’ response”. If he finds that the the reader in the receptor language understands and appreciates the translated text in essentially the same manner and to the same degree as the reader inthe source language did, such a translation can be evaluated as a dynamic equivalent translation.Nida’s theory of “reader s’ response” emphasizes the importance of the acceptance of a translated text by the intended reader in the receptor language, and avoids the subjective evaluation of the critic.Nida’s theory has practical significance for literary translation in some aspects, but itis a fact that it fails to address the issue of transferring aesthetic values of literary work in literary translation.The inadequacy of Nida’s theory for literary translation is made manifest in 3 aspects: ○1Nida pays little attention to the transference of style in his translation process:○2Nida’s discussion of style is very general and superficial: ○3Nida’s functional approach to style does not provide effective means to transfer aesthetic values of literary work.1.4 The guiding principles of the researchThe task of translation theory is to study translation problems, no translation problems, no translation theory (Newmark 1998).1.5 The methodological approachDifferent views of translation are determined by different views of language and culture.In Nida’s view, each language has its own genius, and there are no such things as superior or inferior languages. Anything that can be said in one language can be said in another, and human languages have more in common than in difference. It is this view of language that provides the theoretical basis for his belief in translatability. Nida insists that language and culture are closely related. Language is a part of culture, and the meaning of word or phrase cannot be determined out of linguistic and cultural contexts.。
奈达翻译理论研究 第二章 笔记
Chapter Two Reviews of Nida’s Translation Theory2.1 A survey of Chinese traditional translation theory before the 1980sChinese translation studies can be roughly divided into 2 phases, 1) traditional translation studies before the 1980s 2) modern translation studies from the 1980s to the present time.2.1.1 Debate over Literal and Free translation in Buddhist translationIt is generally agreed that the first recorded statements on translation were made by Zhi Qian(支谦), a translator of Buddhist scriptures in the period of The Three Kingdoms.Master Lao Zi says that beautiful words are not faithful, and faithful words are not beautiful.Confucius says that words cannot fully express one’s thoughts, and thoughts cannot express what one really means.Evidently, early discussions on translation not only touched upon the question of “difficulty”and “fidelity”of translation, but also revealed the conflict between “substance”(质) and “ornament”(文).Dao An(道安AD313—385) in the Eastern Jin Dynasty further emphasized the principle of “fidelity”, insisting that the translators of Buddhist sutras should adhere to the original text without any alteration at the expense of the original words and sentences.Since early Buddhist translators took “fidelity” as their translation principle and adhered too closely to the original, many translations were unintelligible word-for-word renderings. This situation in Buddhist translation did not change until AD 401 when Kumarajiva arrived in Chang’an to take charge of Buddhist translation. He was opposed to literal translation. He advocated free translation. He insisted that the text be translated with the target language usage, and the draft be polished for literary quality.Xuan Zang(602—664), the great Buddhist translator in the Tang Dynasty, who succeeded in regulating free translation and literal translation. He emphasized the importance of the transference of the style in translation.2.1.2 Translation principles in the late Qing DynastyMa Jianzhong, the eminent Chinese linguist, says the translated text should be similar to the original without any difference between them. The reader of the translation benefits from it almost the same as the reader does from the original. Ma could be considered the first person to have explored translation theory in modern China.The most influential translation principle in the history of Chinese translation theory was formulated by Y an Fu in 1898. And Y an’s postulation of the three—character translation principle does not point the way forward for the solution of literal translation versus free translation.During this period, Lin Shu, Y an’s contemporary, was the most renowned figure for literary translation. Lin knew no foreign language at all, but “translated”, or rewrote.2.1.3 The debates on “faithfulness” versus “smoothness” in the 1930sThe discussion of Y an’s principle began in the 1920s, and, in the 1930s, gradually evolved in heated debates over the dichotomy between “faithfulness”and “smoothness”.The two representatives of one of the two opposing schools were the eminent writers Lu Xun and Qu Qiubai, and the other school was represented by Zhao Jingshen. The former upheld that “faithfulness”as the fundamental principle, and preferred to literal translation with the purpose of enriching the target language; while the latter maintained that “smoothness” had priority over “faithfulness”, for the reader of the target language preferred a translation easy to read.金隄：he has taken the combination of “faithfulness” and “smoothness” as his translation criterion before he knew of Nida’s theory in the late 1970s.林语堂：he further developed the concept of Y an’s “elegance”from the perspective of literal translation.In his essay “On Translation”, he advanced “f aithfulness, fluency and beautifulness”（忠实，通顺，美）as translation criterion. He broadened the concept of “elegance”by replacing it with the aesthetic criterion “beautifulness”[Lin’s “beautifulness”criterion refers to the aesthetic nature of literary translation; while Y an’s “elegance”in his term means the usage of the classic Chinese language before the Han Dynasty].Lin’s “beautifulness” criterion reflected the emphasis on the aesthetic aspect of literary translation.2.1.4 Translation criterion acknowledged from the 1940 to the 1960s朱生豪: the dedicated translator of Shakespeare’s plays, he put forward his translation principle of “transference of spirit”.傅雷: the noted translator of Balzac’s novels, like Zhu Shenghao, he stressed the importance of “spirit” in translation.“Translation, in terms of effectiveness, is like copying paintings. What the translator seeks after is resemblance in spirit rather than in form.The term “spirit resemblance”, borrowed from the theory of Chinese classic painting, is his translation principle.钱钟书: in his treatise “Lin Shu’s Translation”proposed “sublimation”as an ideal translation criterion, and further emphasized the importance of reproduction of artistic effect in literary translation.Qian said, in a “sublimated”translation, on the one hand, there should be no trace of unnaturalness and stiffness of language resulting from the differences between the two languages. On the other hand, the flavor of the original is retained.Nida and Taber said the best translation does not sound like a translation.2.1.5 Translation studies during the “Cultural Revolution”Except for a few translation theories, such as Tytler’s translation principles and Fedorov’s theory of equivalent translation, almost no other western translation theories were ever introduced into China.2.1.6 The features of Chinese traditional translation theoriesFirstly, the dispute over literal versus free translation, content versus form hasnever been satisfactorily settled.In general, Chinese traditional translation theories prefer “naturalizing translation”, which requires a natural and idiomatic target language in the translation. This tendency to naturalization method provides grounds for the ready reception of Nida’s translation theory in China in the 1980s, for Nida advocates naturalizing translation in his theory.Secondly, Chinese traditional translation theories have roots in Chinese classical aesthetic and literary criticism. Chinese traditional translation theory has its own special characteristics with a set of unique and idiomatic expressions such as “雅”“气韵”“风骨”“意境”“神韵”“神似”“化境”.Thirdly, since most Chinese traditional translation theories are stated in the form of brief remarks by practioners, they merely focus on translation principles, criterion and methods. Issues like what concrete steps to be taken in the translation process, how to have an adequate understanding of the meaning of the original text, and how to analyze the style, are not dealt with in a systematic and scientific manner.In brief, the emphasis on the transference of aesthetic values of literary works contributes greatly to the high quality of translated literature into Chinese. Nida’s theory won the greatest popularity, for it possessed some features which were similar to Chinese translation studies, such as source—text oriented, preference for naturalization method.2.2 Nida’s translation in China2.2.1 Popularity of Nida’s theory from 1981 to the late 1980sThe first introductory article on Nida’s theory was Lin Shuwu’s “Introduction of Nida’s Translation Theory”published in 1981. Lin criticized Nida for his inappropriate incorporation of Chomsky’s transformational generative grammar into translation study.The year of 1982 saw two introductory articles on Nida’s translation theory. One was Tan Zaixi’Translating byNew Concept of Translation”a) Tan’s article, based on Nida’s Toward a Science of Translation ,reviewedcomparatively the main aspects Nida’s theory, including his view oflanguage, the function of translation, semantic analysis, translationprinciples and methoda.b) Zhuang’s article introduced Nida’s work The Theory and Practice ofTranslation. He made a comparative study between some passage of NewEnglish Bible, Good News Bible (also referred to as Today’s English Version)and the King James Version, and concluded that Good News Bible was betterin terms of intelligibility. Then he introduced Nida’s “new concept oftranslation”, which put emphasis on “the response of the receptor”instead of“the form of the message”.Also, during this period, three books were written on Nida’s theory 1) Nida on Translation by Tan Zaixi, 2) On Translation: with special reference to Chinese andEnglish by Nida and Jin Di, 3) In Search of the Principle of Equivalent Effect by Jin Di.解释：Jin held that the term “response”in Nida’s theory was not appropriate term for a general translation theory. According to Jin, since Nida’s theory was used to guide Bible translating, the emphasis on receptor’s response was to make the Christian believers react correspondingly when they read the Word of God. But in general translation practice, such response was not one of the fundamental steps of translation process. Therefore, he suggested that the term “effect”as in “equivalent effect” “only referred to the impact upon the receptor, but not the receptor’s response”.The three books mentioned above have played a decisive role in spreading Nida’s theory in China. Nida on Translation makes his theory easily accessible to most Chinese translation scholars. On Translation attempts to apply his theory to Chinese translation practice. In Search of the Principle of Equivalent Effect indicates that Chinese scholars begin to realize the limitations of his theory and try to modify it to make it more applicable to translation practice between Chinese and English.In On Translation, the authors argue that the conflict between literal and free translation is primarily a matter of focus. A literal approach attempts to preserve the formal elements of the source text while a free approach attempts to make the target text elegant and intelligible. The two approaches share something in common. Both of them focus on the comparison between the source text and the target text. A dynamic equivalent translation, however, shifts the focus from verbal comparison to reader’s response. So long as a translation produces an equivalent response, whichever method the translator adopts is acceptable. In this way the dispute over literal and free translation can be solved.Lao Long highly praised Nida’s theory, pointing out the significance of “dynamic equivalence”for Chinese translation. He asserted that “dynamic equivalence”, which took “reader’s response”as a translation criterion, was more specific, objective and specific than Chinese traditional criterion such as “faithfulness”, “spirit resemblance”etc in evaluating a translation.Nida’s theory was best represented in his Toward a Science of Translation and The Theory and Practice of Translation.2.2.2 Rethinking Nida’s theory freom the late 1980s through the Mid-1990sBy adopting Chomsky’s linguistic model, Nida formed his concept of “back-transformation”in his Toward a Science of Translation and advanced his three-step translation procedure:1) To back-transform the surface structure of the source text to its kernel,2) To transfer the meaning of the text from source language to receptor language at the kernel level,3) To transform the kernel to its surface structure in the receptor language.In 1990, Luo Xinzhang in his article “Some Views on Resemblance and Equivalence in Translation” questioned the concept of “equivalence”. Interestingly, he didn’t deny these “equivalence theories”. He asserted that western “equivalence”theories (西方的“等值”论) and Chinese “resemblance” theories (中国的“神似”论) were not contradictory, but supplementary.“equal value”(等值论)“equal effect”(等效论) and “spirit resemblance”(神似论)/ T he theory of “equal value” was faithful to the original text;The theory of “equal effect” was faithful to the reader,The theory of “spirit resemblance”was faithful to the aesthetic value of a literary work.It was not until Wu Yicheng published his article “On Problems of Translationuseless for Chinese translation.2.2.4 Problems in the studies of Nida’s theory in ChinaAdmittedly, Nida’s theory has its own weaknesses because it is based on Bible translation only. But problems do exsit in the way his theory is approached by Chinese scholars, such as:1)the significance of Nida’s theory is exaggerated2)There are mistaken renderings and reviews of Nida’a theory in someintroductory articles.Nida’a definition of translation: translation consists in reproducing in thereceptor language the closet natural equivalent of the source languagemessage, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. 所谓翻译，是指从语义到文体在译语中用最贴近而又最自然的对等语再现原语的信息。
翻译研究推荐书目
翻译研究推荐书目选编说明：应广大翻译师生的要求，中国译协翻译理论与翻译教学委员会选编了一份翻译研究推荐书目，以供大家学习研究时参考。
拟订本书目的指导思想是，为研究生、青年教师推荐一批最基本、最基础的、适用面比较广的翻译研究论著。
书目分英文和中文两部分，英文部分内容大致有以下三大类：一是全面介绍各种译论的著作和文选读本，如Venuti编选的“读本”和Munday编写的“导论”；二是语言学派的基本论著，如Nida、Newmark等人的著作；三是文化学派的代表作，如Bassnett、Lefevere等人的著作。
也适量收入了一些反映当代其他译学理论流派的著作，如Nord 、Snell-Hornby等人的著作。
这些著作其实也都是在上述两大流派基础上的延伸和发展。
对国内著述的入选标准相对宽松，并未严格按照英文著作的遴选标准，主要考虑到一是中国的译学研究刚刚起步不久，相关的著述不够丰富，选择的范围也较为有限（这表明，列入本推荐书目的著述并不意味着就是国内同类著作中最好的，只是试图通过这些论著反映中国译学研究的发展轨迹）；二是我们认为作为一名中国的译学研究者理应对当前国内译学研究的基本状况有所了解，这样他们才有可能在这个基础上往前推进。
考虑到研究者便于查找和购买，上海外语教育出版社引进出版的英文原版国外翻译研究丛书29种基本收入本推荐书目。
总之不无必要再次强调的是，这份书目对于研究生来说只是提供了一个一般性的参考意见，各专业方向的学生还必须在导师的指导下，选读与自己专业研究方向相关的其它书籍。
英文部分（100本）ALVAREZ, Roman & VIDAL, M. Carmen-Africa. 1996. Translation, Power, Subversion.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.ANDERMAN, Gunilla & Margaret Rogers (ed.) 2003. Translation Today: Trends and Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.BAER, Brian James & Geoffrey S. Koby (ed.) 2003. Beyond the Ivory Tower: Rethinking Translation Pedagogy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany.BAKER, Mona (ed.) 1998. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.London & New York: Routledge. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之20）BAKER, Mona. 1992. In Other Words, A Coursebook on Translation.London & New York: Routledge.BASSNETT, Susan. & LEFEVERE, Andre. 1998. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之1）BASSNETT, Susan. & TRIVEDI, Harish. (ed.) 1999. Post-colonial Translation, Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.BASSNETT, Susan. 2002. Translation Studies, Third edition. London & New York: Routledge.（上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之27）BOWKER, Lynne & CRONIN, Michael & KENNY, Dorothy & PEARSON, Jennifer (ed.) 1998.Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. JeromePublishing.BURRELL, TODD & Sean K. Kelly. (ed.) 1995. Translation: Religion, Ideology, Politics: Translation Perspectives VIII. Center for Research in Translation, State Universityof New York at Binghamton.CATFORD. J.C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics.Oxford/London: Oxford University Press.CHESTERMAN, Andrew & WAGNER, Emma. 2002. Can Theory Help Translators? A Dialogue Between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface.Manchester: St. JeromePublishing.CHESTERMAN, Andrew (ed.) 1989. Readings in Translation Theory.Oy Finn Lectura Ab. CHESTERMAN, Andrew. 1997. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. John Benjamins Publishing Company.CRONIN, Michael. 2003. Translation and Globalization. London & New York: Routledge. DAVIS, Kathleen. 2001. Deconstruction and Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.（上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之13）DELISLE, Jean & WOODSWORTH, Judith (Edited and Directed) 1995. Translators Through History. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company / UNESCOPublishing.DELISLE, Jean. 1988. Translation: an Interpretive Approach. Ottawa, England: University of Ottawa Press.ELLIS, Roger & OAKLEY-BROWN, Liz (ed.) 2001. Translation and Nation: Towards a Cultural Politics of Englishness. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd. FAWCETT, Peter. 1997. Translation and Language, Linguistic Theories Explained.Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.FLOTOW, Luise von. 1997. Translation and Gender, Translating in the “Era of Feminism”.Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之17）GENTZLER, Edwin. 2001. Contemporary Translation Theories.(Second Revised Edition) Clevedon:Multilingual Matters LTD. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之19）GILE, Daniel. 1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.GRANGER, SYLVIANE & Jacques Lerot & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (ed.) 2003. Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Amsterdam-NewYork: RodopiGUTT, Ernst-August. 2000. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.（上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之18）Hasen, Gyde, Kirsten Malmkjar & Daniel Gile (eds.) 2004. Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany.HATIM, B. & MASON, I. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London/New York: Longman.（上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之8）HATIM, Basil & MASON, Ian. 1997. The Translator as Communicator.London & New York: Routledge.HATIM, Basil. 1997. Communication Across Cultures, Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之2）HATIM, Basil. 2001. Teaching and Researching Translation. New York: LongmanHatim, B. and J. Munday. 2004. Translation: An Advanced Resource Book.London and New York: Routledge.HERMANS, Theo (ed.) 1985. The Manipulation of Literature, Studies in Literary Translation.London & Sydney: Croom Helm.HERMANS, Theo. 1999. Translation in Systems, Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之16）HERMANS, Theo (ed.) 2002. Crosscultural Transgressions: Research Models in Translation Studies II, Historical and Ideological Issues. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. HEWSON, Lance & Jacky Marlin. 1991. Redefining Translation—the Variational Approach.London & New York: Routledge.HICKEY, Leo. (ed.), 1998. The Pragmatics of Translation.Clevedon/Philadelphia/Toronto/Sydney/Johannesburg: Multilingual Matters Ltd.（上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之4）HOLMES, James S. 1988. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies.Amsterdam: Rodopi.HOMEL, David & Sherry Simon (ed.) 1988. Mapping Literature: the Art and Politics of Translation. Montreal: Vehicule Press.HOUSE, Juliane. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment, A Model Revisited.Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.JOHNSTON, David (Introduced and Edited.) 1996. Stages of Translation. Bath: Absolute Classics.KATAN, David. 1999.Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators.Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之15）KELLY, L. G. 1979. The True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and Practice in the West. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.LEFEVERE, Andre (ed.) 1992. Translation/History/Culture, A Sourcebook.London and New York: Routledge. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之23）LEFEVERE, Andre. 1992. Translating Literature, Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. LEFEVERE, Andre.1992.Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame.London and New York: Routledge.（上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之24）MUNDAY, Jeremy. 2001.Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications.London & New York: Routledge.NEWMARK, Peter. 1988. A Textbook of Translation.New York: Prentice-Hall International.（上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之7）NEWMARK, Peter. 1982. Approaches to Translation. Oxford : Pergamon. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之5）NEWMARK, Peter. 1991. About Translation.Clevedon/Philadelphia/Adelaide: Multilingual Matters Ltd.NIDA, Eugene A. & TABER, Charles R. 1969 1974 1982 The Theory and Practice of Translation.Leiden: E. J. Brill.（上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之22）NIDA, Eugene A. 1964. Toward A Science of Translation: with special reference to principles involved in Bible translating. Leiden：E. J. Brill. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之21）NIDA, Eugene A. 2001. Language and Culture: Contexts in Translating. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之9）NORD, Christiane. 1991. Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis (Translated from theGerman ) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA.: Rodopi.NORD, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity, Functionalist Approaches Explained.Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之3）OLOHAN, Maeve (ed.) 2000. Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I: Textual and Cognitive Aspects. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.OLOHAN, Maeve. 2004.Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London & New York, Routledge.PEREZ, Maria Calzada (ed.) 2003. Apropos of Ideology: Translation studies on Ideology----Ideologies in Translation studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.PYM, Anthony. 1998. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. PYM, Anthony. 2004. The Moving Text: Lo c alization, translation, and distribution. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.REISS, Katharina. 2000. Translation Criticism—the Potentials and Limitations, Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.（上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之25）RENER, Frederick M. 1989. Interpretation: Language and Translation, From Cicero to Tytler.Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA.: Rodopi.ROBINSON, Douglas. 1991. The Translator’s Turn. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.ROBINSON, Douglas. 1997. Translation and Empire.Postcolonial Theories Explained.Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.ROBINSON, Douglas. 1997. Western Translation Theory, from Herodotus to Nietzsche.Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.ROBINSON, Douglas. 1997. What Is Translation? Centrifugal Theories, Critical Interventions.Kent: The Kent State University Press.ROBINSON, Douglas. 2001. Who Translates? Translator Subjectivities Beyond Reason.Albany：State University of New York Press.ROSE, Marilyn Gaddis (ed.) 1981. Translation Spectrum, Essays in Theory and Practice.Albany: State University of New York Press.ROSE, Marilyn Gaddis. 1997.Translation and Literary Criticism, Translation as Analysis.Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.SAMUELSSON-BROWN, Geoffrey. 1998. A Practical Guide for Translators (Third Edition) Clevedon：Multilingual Matters Ltd.SCHAFFNER, Christina & KELLY-HOLMES, Helen (ed.) 1996. Discourse and Ideologies.Clevedon：Multilingual Matters Ltd.SCHAFFNER, Christina. & ADAB, Beverly (ed.) 2000. Developing Translation Competence.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.SCHAFFNER, Christina (ed.) 1999. Translation and Norms.Clevedon：Multilingual Matters Ltd.SCHAFFNER, Christina (ed.) 1998. Translation and Quality.Clevedon /Philadelphia /Toronto /Sydney/ Johannesburg: Multilingual Matters Ltd.SCHULTE, Rainer. & BIGUENET, John (ed.) 1992.Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago and London: The University of ChicagoPress.SEWELL, Penelope & Ian Higgins (ed.) 1996. Teaching Translation in Universities: Present and Future Perspectives. London: CILT (The Association for French LanguageStudies in association with the Centre for Information on Language and Research ). SHUTTLEWORTH, Mark. & COWIE, Moira. 1997.Dictionary of Translation Studies.Manchester: St Jerome Publishing. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之29）SIMON, Sherry & ST-PIERRE, PAUL (ed.) 2000.Changing the Terms, Translating in the Postcolonial Era. Ottawa : University of Ottawa Press.SIMON, Sherry (ed.) 1995. Culture in Transit, Translating the Literature of Quebec.Montreal: Vehicule Press.SIMON, Sherry. 1996.Gender in Translation, Cultural Identity and the Politics of Translation.London and New York: Routledge.SNELL-HORNBY, Mary & POCHHACKER, Franz & KAINDL, Klaus (ed.) 1994. Translation Studies, An Interdiscipline.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCompany.SNELL-HORNBY, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之12）SORVALI, Iema. 1996. Translation Studies in a New Perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. STEINER, George. 1975,1992,1998 (Third Edition). After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之11）TIRKKONEN-CONDIT, Sonja & Riitta Jaaskelainen (ed.) 2000. Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.TOURY, Gideon. 1980.In Search of A Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv University. Jerusalem: Academic Press.TOURY, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之10）TROSBORG, Anna (ed.) 1997. Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.TYMOCZKO, Maria & GENTZLER, Edwin (eds.) 2002.Translation and Power. Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.TYMOCZKO, Maria. 1999. Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in English Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之14）VENUTI, Lawrence (ed.) 1992. Rethinking Translation.London and New York: Routledge.VENUTI, Lawrence (ed.) 2000. The Translation Studies Reader. London & New York: Routledge.VENUTI, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility. London and New York: Routledge.（上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之26）VENUTI, Lawrence. 1998. The Scandals of Translation：Towards an Ethics of Difference.London & New York: Routledge.VERMEER, Hans J. 1996. A Skopos theory of Translation: Some Arguments for and against.Heidelberg: TEXTconTEXT-Verlag.VINAY, Jean-Paul and DARBELNET, parative Stylistics of French and English:A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins WAARD, Jan de & Eugene A. Nida. 1986. From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating.Nashville: Nelson.WILLIAMS, Jenny & CHESTERMAN, Andrew. 2002. The Map, A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. （上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之28）WILSS, Wolfram. 1982. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.（上海外语教育出版社国外翻译研究丛书之6）WILSS, Wolfram. 1996.Knowledge and Skills in Translation Behavior.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.ZANETTIN, Federico & Silvia Bernardini & Dominic Stewart (ed.) 2003. Corpora in Translator Education. Manchester & Northampton MA: St. Jerome Publishing.中文部分（30本）蔡新乐著《文学翻译的艺术哲学》，开封：河南大学出版社，2001蔡毅、段京华编著《苏联翻译理论》，武汉：湖北教育出版社，2000陈德鸿、张南峰编《西方翻译理论精选》，香港：香港城市大学出版社，2000陈福康著《中国译学理论史稿》（修订本），上海：外语教育出版社，2000陈玉刚主编《中国翻译文学史稿》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1989郭建中编著《当代美国翻译理论》，武汉：湖北教育出版社，2000郭延礼著《中国近代翻译文学概论》，武汉：湖北教育出版社，1998孔慧怡著《翻译·文学·文化》，北京：北京大学出版社，1999廖七一等编著《当代英国翻译理论》，武汉：湖北教育出版社，2001林煌天主编《中国翻译词典》，武汉：湖北教育出版社，1997刘靖之编《翻译新焦点》，香港：商务印书馆（香港）有限公司，2003刘宓庆著《翻译教学：实务与理论》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2003罗新璋编《翻译论集》，北京：商务印书馆，1984马祖毅、任荣珍著《汉籍外译史》，武汉：湖北教育出版社，1997马祖毅著《中国翻译史》（上卷），武汉：湖北教育出版社，1999孙艺风著《视角·阐释·文化：文学翻译与翻译理论》，北京：清华大学出版社，2004孙致礼著《1949－1966：我国英美文学翻译概论》，南京：译林出版社，1996谭载喜著《西方翻译简史》，北京：商务印书馆，1991王克非编著《翻译文化史论》，上海：外语教育出版社，1997王宏志编《翻译与创作：中国近代翻译小说论》，北京：北京大学出版社，2000王宏志著《重释‘信达雅’——二十世纪中国翻译研究》，上海：东方出版中心，1999谢天振编《翻译的理论建构与文化透视》，上海：外语教育出版社，2000谢天振著《翻译研究新视野》，青岛：青岛出版社，2003许钧、袁筱一等编著《当代法国翻译理论》，武汉：湖北教育出版社，2001许钧、穆雷主编《翻译学概论》，南京：译林出版社，2009杨自俭、刘学云编《翻译新论(1983-1992)》，武汉：湖北教育出版社，1994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郑海凌著《文学翻译学》，郑州：文心出版社，2000中国译协《翻译通讯》编辑部编《翻译研究论文集（1894－1948）》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1984中国译协《翻译通讯》编辑部编《翻译研究论文集（1949－1983）》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1984附录：10种与译学研究关系比较密切的杂志1BABEL: International Journal of Translation (The Netherlands)2META: Translators’ Journal (Canada)3 TARGET: International Journal of Translation Studies (The Netherlands)4 THE TRANSLATOR: Studies in Intercultural Communication (UK)5 PERSPECTIVES: Studies in Translatology （Denmark）6 中国翻译7 外国语8 外语与外语教学9 四川外语学院学报10 东方翻译执笔：穆雷，鸣谢：杨平、朱志瑜、李德超、孙艺风、王东风、谢天振、张美芳等人均对此书目提出过很好的意见和建议，特此致谢！。
- 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)。
确定核心句
1. this land barred the way 2. travelers were weary 3. travelers was on the way 4. this land becomes a land 5. this land is for winter and summer vacation 6. travelers spend winter and summer vacation 7. this land is magic and wonderful
Chomsky’s generative-transformational gr成语法把语言看作 是“一组有限或无限的语 句，每个语句都是有限长 的，由一组有限的语句成 分所构成。
转换生成语法的规则为:一 部分生成语言的核心句，即 那些基本的初级的语句;一 部分则可通过转换规则从核 心句转换成无数的派生句。
Chapter 3.2 - 3.4
3.2
Nida and ‘the science of translation’
Eugene A. Nida (1914–2011)
美国著名翻译家、翻译理论家和语言学家，长 期在圣经学会主持翻译工作，任语言学会主席
倡导用科学的方法研究翻译
Bible Translating (1946) Toward a Science of Translating (1964) The Theory and Practice of Translation (1969)
转换生成语法以句法描 写为单位，包括三部分： 句法部分、语义部分和 语音部分。
The influence of Chomsky
奈达将乔姆斯基的转换生成语法融入了他的“翻译科学”之中。奈达认为 转换生成语法为翻译者提供对原语文本进行解码的技巧，以及对目的语文 本进行编码的程序。
不过在分析原语文本时，奈达却将转换生成语法倒序进行，即著名的“逆 转换”(back-transformation)。因此，原语文本的表层结构被分析为深层 结构基本成分;这些成分在翻译过程中被“转移”了，然后根据语义和文体
将例句的近核心句表达形式传译后，得到译文1，重组后得到更佳的译文2。
译文1:以前，筋疲力尽的旅游者到此就被挡去了去路，这地方现在已经成了冬 夏两季休假圣地，风光景物蔚为壮观。
译文2:以前，每当筋疲力尽的游客们走到这个地方，就得止步,不能前行;而现 在这里已经山河绮丽，景色迷人，是他们冬夏度假的首选之地。
The influence of Chomsky
事件(events) :通过但并 非总是由动词执行;
实体(objects) :通过但并 非总是由名词执行，
四种功能词
抽象概念(abstracts) :数 量和质量，包括形容词;
关系词(relations) :包 括性别、介词和连接词。
This land, which once barred the way of weary travelers, now has become a land for winter and summer vacations, a land of magic and wonder.
的特点重新构建成目的语文本的表层结构。
The influence of Chomsky
例: 表层结构: 神的旨意(will of God) 逆向转换：B (实体，God)执行A (事 件，wills )
奈达认为翻译是“在对原文进 行语法语义分析的基础上，将 其从表层结构逆转换为深层结 构，然后传译到译文深层结构， 最后再从译文深层结构传译到 译文的深层结构，最后再从译 文的深层结构转换为译文的表 层结构。”
说明各个核心句子的关系
A.核心句3修饰1的受事者way,核 心句2修饰核心句3实施者
B.核心句5与7是并列关系,核心句 6是5的目的
核 心 句 5 和 7 是 4 的 所 指 , 指 this land
C.核心句1和4是对比关系
连接各个核心句，重述为近核心句表达形式
Once, this land barred the way of travelers who was weary, while now this land becomes magical and wonderful and is a good land for travelers to spend their summer and winter vacations.
This land, which once barred the way of weary travelers, now has become a land for winter and summer vacations, a land of magic and wonder.
说明内隐成分之间的关系 Bar 的 受 事 者 是 travelers' way, 而 winter and summer vacations的受事者是travelers,且是this land的现存目的。
子曰:弟子入则孝,出则弟谨而信,凡爱众,而亲仁。行有余力,则以学文。
核心句 1.孔子说 2求学之人在家应该孝敬父母 3求学者在外读书应该尊敬师长 4.求学者说话要谨慎，做事要诚信 5求学者要热爱群众 6求学者要多与有仁得之人交往 7.只有做到这些,才有资格学习文化知识
核心句2、3、4、5、6、7都是(1)的宾语。 2、3、4、5、6是并列关系。 3、4、5、6又是7的前提。