第二讲当代翻译理论

合集下载

当代翻译理论

名词解释：1、文化转向轮：是翻译研究两大主将勒菲弗尔和巴斯内特共同提出的，即翻译研究所要关注的不仅仅是语言问题，它必须在更广阔的历史文化视野中展开自己的讨论。

2、归化翻译：是要把源语本土化，以目标语或译文读者为归宿，采取目标语读者所习惯的表达方式来传达原文的内容。

归化翻译要求译者向目的语的读者靠拢，译者必须像本国作者那样说话，原作者要想和读者直接对话，译作必须变成地道的本国语言。

归化翻译有助于读者更好地理解译文，增强译文的可读性和欣赏性。

3、异化翻译：是“译者尽可能不去打扰作者，让读者向作者靠拢”。

在翻译上就是迁就外来文化的语言特点，吸纳外语表达方式，要求译者向作者靠拢，采取相应于作者所使用的源语表达方式，来传达原文的内容，即以目的语文化为归宿。

使用异化策略的目的在于考虑民族文化的差异性、保存和反映异域民族特征和语言风格特色，为译文读者保留异国情调。

4、功能对等论：所谓“功能对等”，就是说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。

奈达提出对等包括四个方面:1. 词汇对等,2. 句法对等,3. 篇章对等,4. 文体对等。

在这四个方面中,“意义是最重要的,形式其次”。

5、功能目的论：目的论认为，所有翻译活动遵循的首要原则是“目的原则”，即翻译应能在译入语情境和文化中，按译入语接受者期待的方式发生作用。

翻译行为所要达到的目的决定整个翻译行为的过程，即结果决定方法。

但翻译活动可以有多个目的，这些目的进一步划分为三类：(1)译者的基本目的(如谋生)；(2)译文的交际目的(如启迪读者)；(3)使用某种特殊的翻译手段所要达到的目的(如为了说明某种语言中的语法结构的特殊之处采用按其结构直译的方式)。

但是，通常情况下，“目的”指的是译文的交际目的，即“译文在译人语社会文化语境中对译入语读者产生的交际功能”。

(Venuti：2001)因此，译者应在给定的翻译语境中明确其特定目的，并根据这一目的来决定采用何种翻译方法—直译、意译或介于两者之间。

当代翻译理论(根茨勒)——中文笔记(汇编)

美国翻译培训派（The American Translation Workshop）注重文学作品的翻译，其指导思想是翻译是一门艺术，培训班可以加强学生对文学、语言和诠释的认识和理解，进而通过翻译经验的交流提高翻译技艺和水平。

里查兹、庞德和威尔是该学派的主要代表。

里查兹（I. A. Richards）曾在哈佛大学创办阅读培训班，为翻译培训班提供了丰富的实践经验。

翻译培训班的宗旨是要使学生充分理解文本，达成正确而统一的反映和体验，并用完美的口、笔译形式再现或阐述这一体验。

其理论前提显然是文学作品有一个终极的、统一的意义。

只要通过适当的训练，掌握正确的方法，人们就能准确地理解原文。

翻译培训班的任务就是制定若干条款和程序，排除一切妨碍正确理解的障碍。

庞德（Ezra Pound）认为文学作品刻意塑造的是形象，而非内容或意义。

在翻译中译者应注重的不是所描写的事物，而是描述的过程和语言的形式与能量（energy）。

译者如同艺术家、雕刻家和书法家，应精确地再现细节、词语、片段和整个意象。

作品真正的灵魂常常蕴藏于“一瞥或一瞬之间”。

威尔（Frederic Will）认为文学作品是表现自我、统一而连贯的形式，能赋予我们洞悉事物本质的能力。

语际交际和翻译之所以可能，是因为人类的体验和情感有一个共核。

在翻译中他强调直觉的作用，认为在诗歌翻译中，有天赋的翻译家即使不精通原作的语言也同样可以再现原作的精髓与本质。

他认为，所谓精髓和本质就是作品的能量和冲量（thrust），译文不仅是原作的补充和延伸，而且使原作获得新的生命，勃发出新的生机。

美国翻译培训派对人类主观无意识的研究、强调文学翻译中的“创造性转换（creative transposition）”、注重文学作品的文学价值以及在译文忠实的标准问题上提出的新颖观点等，都对其后的翻译学派产生了巨大影响。

翻译科学派（The Science of Translation）亦称翻译语言学派，包括布拉格学派、伦敦学派、美国结构学派、交际理论派和俄国语言学派。

当代美国翻译理论

托尔曼和他的《翻译艺术》赫伯特. 库欣.托儿曼(Herbert Cushing Tolman)的《翻译艺术》（Art of Translation）发表于1901年。

它是美国理论史上的第一部专著，属于西方传统理论研究的范畴。

在该书中，托儿曼谈到了翻译的本质，翻译的过程，翻译的标准和译作的风格等问题。

一．翻译的本质托儿曼谈的是文学翻译。

首先，他认为，翻译是一种艺术。

翻译家应是艺术家，就像雕塑家，画家和设计师一样。

翻译的艺术，贯穿于整个翻译过程之中，即理解和表达的过程之中。

托儿曼认为，翻译艺术与绘画艺术最相近。

二．翻译的过程作者指出：“翻译的心理过程由两部分组成：第一，我们必须掌握原文作者的思想；第二，我们必须用译文的语言把原文作者的思想表达出来。

”这里，托儿曼像一般传统的理论家一样，把翻译的过程分为理解和表达两个阶段。

1．理解：托儿曼强调，必须从原文的观点理解原文，才能掌握原作的精神。

他说，译者只有从原文的观点出发去阅读，才能使自己沉浸在原文的思想和感情的激流之中，才能领会原文的精神实质。

他把译者阅读原文的过程，比作画家落笔前的构思过程。

画家只有知道自己要画什么，才会动手去画。

他不会随便去画一丛灌木，然后再画一颗树，接着再画一块石头，而是头脑里首先有了整幅风景的轮廓，心领神会，然后才动手去画。

翻译艺术也正是这样。

译者只有透彻地理解了原作的思想之后，才应动笔翻译。

（泰特勒也把翻译比作画画，但泰特勒强调的是翻译的困难，因为，画家临摹可用相同的材料，翻译家模仿却用的是不同的语言。

）2．表达：托儿曼指出: “译者对原文的精神领会越沈，就越感到自己责任之重大，也越来越深刻地理解到传达原作结构的精神实质之困难。

”他说：“翻译要能在英语读者或听众中引起像原文读者或听众所感受的同样的感情。

”他也意识到，译作要像原作一样，在译文读者中产生原作在原文读者中完全一样的效果是不可能的。

关于这一点，他又把翻译比作绘画艺术。

3翻译第二讲--翻译标准(理论归纳性较强,后面英汉对照部分可用)

History of Argument “案本---求真---神似---化境” 案本---求真---神似---化境” 案本---求真---神似---化境
严复“ 严复“信、达、雅” 林语堂“ 林语堂“忠、顺、美” 梁实秋、宁错务顺” 梁实秋、赵景琛 “宁错务顺” 鲁迅“宁信不顺” 鲁迅“宁信不顺” 瞿秋白“信顺统一” 瞿秋白“信顺统一” 傅雷“形似神似” 傅雷“形似神似” 钱钟书“入化境界” 钱钟书“入化境界”
■言内意义是语言符号之间的关系，它具体体现在语音、词汇、句法和言内意义是语言符号之间的关系，它具体体现在语音、词汇、语篇等层次。语音层次主要包括各种音韵（如头韵、元音迭韵、和声、语篇等层次。语音层次主要包括各种音韵（如头韵、元音迭韵、和声、押韵）、格律及重读等方面；词汇层次有谐音双关、一语双叙等；）、格律及重读等方面押韵）、格律及重读等方面；词汇层次有谐音双关、一语双叙等；句法层次有组合关系、排比、倒装等；篇章则有句式的变化、层次有组合关系、排比、倒装等；篇章则有句式的变化、段落的安排和衔接、衔接、粘连等
余光中“变通的艺术” 余光中“变通的艺术”
“翻译如婚姻，是一种两相妥协的艺术。譬翻译如婚姻，是一种两相妥协的艺术。翻译如婚姻如英文译成中文，既不能西风压倒东风，如英文译成中文，既不能西风压倒东风，变成洋腔洋调的中文，变成洋腔洋调的中文，也不许东风压倒西变成油腔滑调的中文，风，变成油腔滑调的中文，则东西之间势必相互妥协，以求‘两全之计’ 必相互妥协，以求‘两全之计’。至于妥协到什么程度，以及哪一方应该多让一步，协到什么程度，以及哪一方应该多让一步，神而明之，变通之道，神而明之，变通之道，就要看每一位译者自己的修养了。自己的修养了。”
Pound’s version: THE JEWEL STAIRS’ GRIEVANCE The jeweled steps are already quite white with dew, It is so late that the dew soaks my gauze stockings, And I let down the crystal curtain And watch the moon through the clear autumn. BY Rihaku

当代中西方翻译理论

RED
信达雅的追根溯源
•支谦《法句经序》 •泰特勒的翻译三原则
RED
ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱ严复提出雅的原因
•针对特定的翻译对象即外国哲学社会科学著作的“精理微言” •针对特定的读者对象即中国的士大夫
RED
林纾 --- 中国近代文坛的开山祖师及译界的泰斗
译才并世数严林
RED
翻译特点
A
B
C
古为洋用
古文家
又快又好
RED
周作人
• 著名文艺理论家、文艺批评家、我国最早的著名文学翻译家。曾是新文学运动的先驱，《新青年》战斗阵地的一员。 • 其主要的翻译方法是直译法，是直译法的代表。
RED
• 二十年代初，周氏兄弟便鲜明地使用“直译”这个术语来概括他们的译学主张。1925年，周作人为其译文集《陀螺》写的序文中，十分精辟地阐述和总结了有关“直译”的理论，并指明了“直译”与“死译”、 “胡译”等的界限： • “我的翻译向来用直译法，……我现在还是相信直译法，因为我觉得没有更好的方法。但是直译也有条件，便是必须达意，尽汉语的能力所能及的范围内，保存原文的风格，表现原文的意义，换一句话说就是信与达。近来似乎不免有人误会了直译的意思，译文只要一字一字地将原文换成汉语，就是直译，譬如英文的Lying on his back一句，不译作 ‘ 仰卧着’，而译为 ‘卧在他的背上’，那便是欲求信而反不词了。据我的意见，‚仰卧着‛是直译，也可以说是意译；将它略去不译，或译作‘坦腹高卧’以至‘卧北窗下自以为羲皇上人’是‘胡译’， ‚卧在他的背上‛这一派乃是死译了‛。
RED
郭沫若
• 作家、诗人、翻译家 • 郭沫若的翻译实践从1919年翻译歌德的《浮士德》开始，一直到1947年结束，历时约三十年的时间。 • 《雪莱诗选》、《浮士德》、《少年维特之烦恼》《海涅诗选》、《屠场》、《战争与和平》《泰戈尔诗选》等 • 创作论是郭沫若整个翻译思想的灵魂：翻译家不是鹦鹉名士，强调翻译中的创作精神，认为好的翻译等于创作，翻译与创作等同论是他最突出的翻译理念之一。

当代西方翻译理论(二)

功能学派
凯瑟琳娜·莱斯——类型、题材及文本个性汉斯·弗米尔——翻译行为的目的和委任克里斯汀娜·诺德——目的、忠诚及惯例
文化学派
詹姆斯·霍尔姆斯——翻译学的名与实伊塔玛·埃文·佐哈——翻译文学与文学多元系统吉迪恩·图里——描述性翻译研究理论安德烈·勒菲弗尔——文本、系统、折射（文学）苏珊·巴斯奈特——文化研究的翻译转向西奥·赫斯曼——翻译研究及新范式
当代西方翻译理论
语言学派
罗曼·雅克布逊——论翻译的语言学问题彼得·纽马克——语意翻译与交际翻译约翰·卡特福德——论翻译转换尤金·奈达——论对等原则巴兹尔·哈蒂姆——互文介入玛丽·斯奈尔——翻译：跨文化活动
阐学派
乔治·斯坦纳——阐释的步骤安托瓦纳·贝尔曼——翻译及对异的考验
道格拉斯·罗宾逊——后殖民与翻译研究特佳斯维妮尼南贾纳——翻译的定位盖亚特里·斯皮瓦克——翻译的政治埃尔斯·维埃拉——超越性创造诗学
苏东学派
安德烈·费奥多罗夫——翻译理论的任务吉维·加切奇拉泽——文学翻译中的创造吉里·列维——翻译是选择性过程安娜·丽洛娃——翻译研究的范畴
解构学派
瓦尔特·本雅明——译者的任务雅克·德里达——巴别塔之旅保罗·德曼——评本雅明劳伦斯·韦努蒂——文化身份的塑造
女性主义
雪莉·西蒙——翻译理论中的性别化立场劳丽·钱伯伦——性别与翻译的隐喻巴巴拉·格达德——女性主义话语冯·弗罗托——女性主义翻译理论批评
后殖民主义

根茨勒的_当代翻译理论_第二版_评介_李江春

2014年1月第35卷第1期外语教学Foreign Language EducationJan．2014Vol．35No．1根茨勒的《当代翻译理论》（第二版）评介李江春（湖南财政经济学院外语系湖南长沙410205）Edwin Gentzler．2012．Contemporary Translation Theories （Ｒevised Second Edition）．Shanghai：Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press．ISBN978-81095-0626-2．1．引言《当代翻译理论》探讨了主要翻译流派的长处以及弱点，研究了各个学派之间的内在联系，描述了翻译理论对当今文化研究的重要性，并对当今主要翻译理论的各种假设提出了质疑。

第二版（2012年2月出版）更新了各学派的观点，增添了最新的研究成果。

全书共分七个部分：引言、北美研讨班学派、翻译科学派、早期译本研究派、多元系统论、解构主义派、翻译研究的发展前景。

由于该书的第一版已有书评，本文只对增添部分的主要内容进行评述。

2．劳伦斯·韦努蒂：重新思考翻译根茨勒在第二章“北美研讨班学派”增加了对劳伦斯·韦努蒂的评论。

他把韦努蒂与庞德和理查兹等人一起列为北美翻译研讨班学派，即受新批评文论影响的翻译的文艺学派。

他认为，韦氏的异化理论仍拘泥于“忠实”与“非忠实”的传统讨论。

更重要的是，在韦努蒂看来，“异化”和“归化”是两种对立的、不可调和的翻译策略，译者只可选择其一并贯彻到底，没有中间路线可走。

因此，“异化”和“归化”的构筑又回归了二元对立的传统（谭晓丽2009：71-77）。

韦努蒂认为在美国翻译是译者的隐形活动，译者的地位趋于边缘化，原作的差异性被译者巧妙地“隐”掉了。

这种翻译活动采取的是归化策略，用自身文化中熟悉的东西去表现传达异域文化中的差异性，往往使译文读者产生一种错觉，彷佛在译作中看到了自己的影子，因而阅读起来无需做出任何努力。

当代翻译理论(根茨勒)――中文笔记

里查兹、庞德和威尔是该学派的主要代表。

xx（I.A. Richards）曾在哈佛大学创办阅读培训班，为翻译培训班提供了丰富的实践经验。

翻译培训班的宗旨是要使学生充分理解文本，达成正确而统一的反映和体验，并用完美的口、笔译形式再现或阐述这一体验。

其理论前提显然是文学作品有一个终极的、统一的意义。

只要通过适当的训练，掌握正确的方法，人们就能准确地理解原文。

翻译培训班的任务就是制定若干条款和程序，排除一切妨碍正确理解的障碍。

庞德（Ezra Pound）认为文学作品刻意塑造的是形象，而非内容或意义。

在翻译中译者应注重的不是所描写的事物，而是描述的过程和语言的形式与能量（energy）。

译者如同艺术家、雕刻家和书法家，应精确地再现细节、词语、片段和整个意象。

作品真正的灵魂常常蕴藏于“一瞥或一瞬之间”。

威尔（FredericWill）认为文学作品是表现自我、统一而连贯的形式，能赋予我们洞悉事物本质的能力。

语际交际和翻译之所以可能，是因为人类的体验和情感有一个共核。

在翻译中他强调直觉的作用，认为在诗歌翻译中，有天赋的翻译家即使不精通原作的语言也同样可以再现原作的精髓与本质。

他认为，所谓精髓和本质就是作品的能量和冲量（thrust），译文不仅是原作的补充和延伸，而且使原作获得新的生命，勃发出新的生机。

美国翻译培训派对人类主观无意识的研究、强调文学翻译中的“创造性转换（creativetransposition）”、注重文学作品的文学价值以及在译文忠实的标准问题上提出的新颖观点等，都对其后的翻译学派产生了巨大影响。

翻译科学派（The Science of Translation）亦称翻译语言学派，包括布拉格学派、伦敦学派、美国结构学派、交际理论派和俄国语言学派。

《当代翻译理论》埃德温.根次勒

《当代翻译理论》埃德温.根次勒Contemporary translation theoriesBy Edwin Gentzler 1 The North American Translation WorkshopIn many academic circles in North America, literary translation is still considered secondary activity, mechanical rather than creative, neither worthy of serious critical attention nor of general interest to the public. Translators, too, frequently lament the fact that there is no market foe their work and that what does get published is immediately relegated to the margins of academic investigation. Yet, a closer analysis of the developments over the last four decades reveals that in some circles literary translation has been drawing increasing public and academic interest.In the early sixties, there were no translation workshops at institutions of higher learning in the United States. Translation was a marginal activity at best, not considered by academia as a proper field of study in the university system. In his essay "The State of Translation, " Edmund Keeley, director of translation workshops first at Iowa and later at Princeton, wrote," In 1963 there was no established and continuing public forum for the purpose: no translation centres, no associations of literary translator as far as know, no publications devoted primarily to translations, translators, and their continuing problems"(keeley, 1981:11). In this environment, Paul Engle, Director of the Writers' Workshop at the University of Iowa, gave the first heave; arguing that creative writing knows no national boundaries, he expanded the Creative Writing Program to include international writers. In 1964 Engle hires a full-time director for what was the firsttranslation workshop in the United Stated and began offering academic credit for literary translations. The following year the Ford Foundation conferred a $150,000 grant on the University of Texas at Austin toward the establishment of the National Translation Center. Also in 1965, the first issue of Modern Poetry in Translation, edited by Ted Hughes and Daniel Weissbort, was published, providing literary translators a place for their creative work. In 1968, the National Translation Center published the first issue of Delos, a journal devoted to the history as well as the aesthetics of translation had established a place, albeit a small one, in the production of American culture.The process of growth and acceptance continued in the seventies. Soon translation coursesand workshops were being offered at several universities-Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Iowa, Texas, and State University of New York, Binghamton among them. Advanced degrees were conferred upon students for creative, historical, and theoretical work in the field of literary translation. This, in turn, led to the establishment of the professional organization American Literary Translators Association(ALTA) in the late seventies as well as the founding of the journal Translation for that organization. By 1977, the United States government lent its authority to this process with the establishment of the National Endowment of the Humanities grants specifically for literary translation. For a while in the late seventies and early eighties, it looked as if the translation workshop would follow the path of creative writing, also considered at one time a non-academic field, and soon be offered at as many schools as had writing workshops.But despite the increase in translation activity and its gaining of limited institutional support in the sixties and seventies, theprocess of growth plateaued. Many assumptions about the secondary status of the field remained. T oday, while many universities offer advanced degrees in creative writing, comparatively few offer academic credit for literary translation. One reason is surely the monolinguistic nature of the culture. Howerer, such typecasting is also due to socio-economic motives: labeling translations as derivative serves to reinforce an existing status quo, one that places primary emphasis not on the process but on the pursuit and consumption of "original" meaning. The activity of translation represents a process antithetical to certain reigning literary beliefs, hence its relegation to marginal status within educational and economic institutions and its position in this society as part of a counter-cultural movement.Indeed, during the sixties and early seventies, the practice of literary translation became heavily in representations of alternate value systems and views of reality. While not taken seriously by academics, sales of translated literary texts enjoyed unprecedented highs on the open market. Perhaps no one articulated the political urgency and popular attraction of literary translations during this period better than Ted Huges: That boom in the popular sales of translated modern poetry was without precedent. Though it reflected only one aspect of the wave of mingled energies that galvanized those years with such extremes, it was fed by almost all of them-Buddhism, the mass craze of Hippie ideology, the revolt of the young, the Pop music of the Beatles and their generation... That historical moment might well be seen as...an unfolding from inwards, a millennial change in the IndustrialWest's view of reality. (Hughes. 1983:9)For Hughes, the translation boom of the sixties was simplyone aspect of a generational movement that articulated itself in a variety of media. While his view of translation as anti-establish may not have been true of all translation during this period, it did hold true for a large and influential group of contemporary American poets actively translating at the time: Zdynas's notes seem characteristic of prevailing assumptions regarding the teaching of translation in the United States. He shares the assumption that creative writing cannot be taught, that creative talent is something one is born with. Such a belief plagued creative writing for years before it was accepted as an university discipline. Secondly, Zdanys reveals a prejudice for teaching students how to enjoy the original poem, one that is in keeping with New Critical tenets. His conclusion is not altogether surprising-although he argues against conventional wisdom that translation can be taught at the university, he does it not for reasons Ted Hughes suggested-that it may lead to a change in the West views reality-but because it reinforces a fairly conservative humanistic ideology. This is nowhere better revealed than in a contradiction within the essay regarding the theoretical basis of the course. On the one hand, Zdynas hopes the course will attract students interested in theoretical question; on the other hand, he argues that he himself opposes the restraints of "predetermined aesthetic theories." in addition, without telling us why, Zdanys says that "this essay unfortunately cannot consider" the contribution of deconstruction to the field. Although, ironically, Yale itself houses numerous such critics who are in fact part of the same department (a special interdepartmental program) in which the course was offered.Zdanys clearly finds translation a subjective activity, subsuming translation under the larger goal of interpretingliterature. His argument that the study of translation can lead to a qualitative "richer" understanding reveals the humanistic agenda. His goal is more clearly disclosed in a section of the same essay in which he talks about the presence of a female linguistics students who, despite Zdany's "initial misgivings" about what she might contribute to the seminar, actually brought a "valuable and intriguing" perspective to the aesthetic process he was teaching. Zdanyd contradicts his stated premise-a rejection of predetermined aesthetic theories-when he concludes that although her approach was a "refreshing" addition to the course, he "secretly hopes" that he "converted" her during the course. The lingering question is "converted her to what?"Zdynas's notes seem characteristic of prevailing assumptions regarding the teaching of translation in the United States. He shares the assumption that creative writing cannot be taught, that creative talent is something one is born with. Such a belief plagued creative writing for years before it was accepted as an university discipline. Secondly, Zdanys reveals a prejudice for teaching students how to enjoy the original poem, one that is in keeping with New Critical tenets. His conclusion is not altogether surprising-although he argues against conventional wisdom that translation can be taught at the university, he does it not for reason Ted Hughes suggested- that it may lead to a change in the way the West views reality- but because it reinforces a fairy conservative humanistic ideology. This is nowhere better revealed than in a contradiction within the essay regarding the theoretical basis of the course. On the one hand, Zdynas hopes the course will attract students interested in theoretical; on the hand, he argue that he himself opposes the restraints of "predetermined aesthetic theories." In addition, without tellingus why, Zdanys says that "this essay unfortunately cannot consider" the contrition of deconstruction to the field, although, ironically, Yale itself houses numerous such critics who are in fact part of the same department (a special interdepartmental program) in which the course was offered.Zdanys clearly finds translation a subjective activity, subsuming translation under the larger goal of interpreting literature. His argument that the study of translation can lead to a qualitative "richer" understanding reveals the humanistic agenda. His goal is more clearly disclosed in a section of the same essay in which he talks about the presence of a female linguistics student who, despite Zdanys's "initial misgivings" about what she might contribute to the seminar, actually brought a "valuable and intriguing" perspective to the aesthetic process he was teaching. Zdanys contradicts his stated premise-a rejection of predetermined aesthetic theories-when he concludes that although her approach was a "refreshing" addition to the course, he "secretly hopes" that he "converted" her during the course. The lingering question is "converted her to what?"That unarticulated "what" is the topic I wish to address in this chapter. Scholars associated with the North American translation workshop premise tend to claim that their approach is not theoretically preconditioned; this chapter attempts to formulate the non-dit present in their works, to analyze those underlying assumptions, and to show how they either reinforce the existing literary edifices or offer a counterclaim that deserves further consideration. Through thisapproach, I hope to show that the translation workshop approach actually does both, i.e., simultaneously reinforces and subverts, and that this dual activity, necessarily operative becauseof the methodology, is in itself a contribution to the ongoing investigation of not only translation phenomena, but of language in general.2 Frederic Will: The paradox of translationWhile Richards's work in translation might be charactererized as an extension of his literary criticism, Frederic Will's literary theory- initially not unlike Richards's- has changed much because of his involvement in translation. Will's work in translation theory is symptomatic of that of many adherents of the American workshop approach. Will first taught Classics at the University of Texas, where he founded the journal Arion with William Arrowsmith. He then moved to the forefront in translation by accepting the directorship of the translation workshop at the University of Iowa in 1964. In 1965, he founded Micromegas, a journal devoted to literary translation, each issue focused on the poetry of a different country. His first theoretical text Litersture Inside Out, published in 1966, raised questions about naming and meaning and indirectly suggests that translation can be viewed as a form of naming, fiction-making, and knowing(Will,1966:15). His next book, The Knife in the Stone, published in 1973, dealt directly with the practice of translation; and parts of it rearticulated his workshop experience at Iowa.Although Will's early text did not specifically address translation problems, certain relevant theoretical assumptions are visible. Will's project picks up where Richards's left off: he uses New Critical beliefs to try to reconcile recent critical theories. Will's first essay "From Naming to Fiction Making" in Literature Inside Out appears to agree with a theory of cultural relativism. Holding that different languages construct separate realities and that what any particular word refers to cannot be determinedprecisely,Will calls into question translation theories based on reference to a universal objective reality. Reality can only be learned, he argues, through the names we give it, and so , to a certain degree, language is the creator of reality. Will also distances himself from theories that posit a notion of univeral themes or motifs, theories which do not view symbol-making as part of a human activity. At the same time, however, Will argues that knowledge of essence is possible:"The core of the self, the theme of its efforts, is love," which is a power unto itself and can bring the outer reality"into the focus of consciousness"(Will,1966:9). Naming, for Will, is the fundamental activity of man-without thepower to name we would have remained savages. Language, thus, he argues, takes on our character, out rhythm, our desires, and reveals our true inner selves. Will continues to say that The self's effort, in naming, is not mere verbal play but is part of its overall effort to translate the outer into the human. This situation follows from the unity of the self. In such unity the expression of a core-movement, the self, all bear the character of that movement. Each expression bears the core's character.(Will,1966:13 )As opposed to an objective outer reality that can be translated across cultures, Will posits a central common core of human experience and emotions that can overcome the indeterminate nature of language and bring that "outer reality" into focus. We translate our selves into language; naming does not necessarily give us any insight regarding outside reality(that to which language refers), but it does help us to better know our inner selves.The power of this inner understanding and knowledge isfurther elaborated in the second essay, "Literature and Knowledge," in which the influence of Richards is everywhere to be seen. Literature, according to Will, also "embodies truth and knowledge" (1966: 17). The New Critical tenet of the unity of the original text is also adopted; Will argues that a work of literature "is a deeply unified verbal event occurring in a self." the words that compose a work of literature, so important to Pound, are merged with the whole for Will, and "are, in some sense, literally one." in the literary work, "most or all" of the levels of meaning of words, and Will lists five-dictionary, contextual, symbolic, interpretative, and inner aural and visual overtones- "are made one" (Will, 1966:18). Will's agenda, like Richards' s, is fundamentally didactic, not just in terms of developing competent literary critics, but also in terms of a larger, humanistic goal. Literature, according to Will not only "gives us the power to understand," but also serves as a means to understand a higher metaphysical power. Will clearly believes that "that power to understand something is 'knowledge' of something." Yet we have seen that Will is skeptical about our ability to know objective reality. He concludes with the rhetorical question, "Will else can knowledge be, even about the natural world or about God, except the power to understand them?" (Will, 1966; 2 4 ). Literary works present us with models by which we can "clarify" the real, irrational world that we experience as a "confusion of intermingled space, action, and character." literature thus deepens and enriches our lives as well as gives us a better understanding of our own true selves.Will then reexamines his own theory after his experience in the translation workshop at theUniversity of Iowa and after have after having read Pound.Although his next theoretical text, The Knife in the Stone, retain metaphysical concepts, many of his romantic notion of love and humanistic believes in the power of the heart dissipate. His concept of text becomes less of a unified and coherent whole; instead it is seen as being interwoven with reality, subject to use, change, and variable interpretations. In The Knife in the Stone, Will uses translation as the "testing ground" for his theory, and clearly the goal is to substantiate the metaphysical beliefs he brings to the project: The inter-translatibility of languages is the firmest testing ground, and demonstration ground, for the existence of a single ideal body of literature. If there is any meaning, to the ideal of such a body, it will show itself through as effort to equate literature in one language with literature in another,(Will,1973;42)Again, the opposition includes those who are skeptical about the possibility of translation, those who question concepts of literariness, and those who find the concept of referentiality problematic. Will names Sartre and Mead, whose theories posit inner "selves" who are not ware of the universal core of human experience, but are, in Will's terminology, "groundless" and "social constructed" respectively. Though the test of translation, Will intends disprove the "relativity" thesis and show that one universal common ground-that of the single ideal body of literature-does, in fact, enjoy "inter-translatibility". However, Will's argument, when put to the test, dose not confirm his initial presuppositions, but causes him to alter his conception of translation in a manner that may be of interest to contemporary theory.The change in the logic of Will's argument is most apparent in the final essay of The Knife in the stone, called paradoxically"Faithful Traitor", a play on the Italian aphorism tradutore, traditore. Briefly, the article reviews his experience teaching at Iowa. In the course of the activity of actual translation, it became clear to Will that what he was translating had less to do with the meaning of the text and more with the energy of the expression, how meaning was expressed in language. He found himself using a kind of Poundian theory. The cultural relativity thesis that once was so problematical is adapted by turning it back in on itself, not to oppose his practice, but to contribute as an equally always present part. Since language is indeterminate, since we never have access to be the meaning behind specific language, all the more reason to be free and trust not what language says but what the language does. The traditional notion of translation to fall into categories of "faulty equivalences" and of "versions" of the original. What Willadvocates instead is an approach that translates not what a work meaning, but the energy or "thrust" of a work, for which there is no "correct" way of translating.翻译研究20世纪70年代末，一条新的学术原则诞生，那就是翻译研究。

英国现当代翻译研究PPT课件

12
3）文化翻译理论研究
特点：文化翻译理论研究认为，翻译不仅仅是两种语言之间的转换，还是两种文化间的交流代表人物：巴斯内特和赫曼斯等。
13
结束语
当你尽了自己的最大努力时，失败也是伟大的，所以不要放弃，坚持就是正确的。
When You Do Your Best, Failure Is Great, So Don'T Give Up, Stick To The End
4
斯图尔特贝茨 “翻译是不应该着眼于表面，而应看精神实质。既然译者可能像原作者一样娴熟的驾驭自己的语言，甚至比原来的作者更善于驾驭自己的语言，译者完全可以像原作一样经久不衰，甚至超过原文” 。贝茨强调译作是一种创作性工作。
5
（二）当代翻译理论研究
特点： 1. 商业、外交、科技等专业和事务性
的翻译、综合的翻译和学术、科技、实
用问题的翻译。萨瓦里的许多观点对奈
达纽马克等发的翻译思想产生了积极的
影响。
7
乔治.斯塔那英国阐释学派中最具影响的翻译家。专著《通天塔之后：语言与翻译面面观》。该著从诗学、哲学、语言学、文学批评、文化史学和阐释学的角度分析和论证了语言的本质、语言理解对翻译的影响，以及西方历史上出现的主要翻译理论和语言理论等。
10
皮特纽马克
英国当代翻译理论家。对翻译理论研
究可概括为四个方面：
1. 翻译的类别：交际翻译、语义翻译、
直译和死译；
2. 翻译的性质：既是科学又是艺术；
3. 翻译的规则：翻译应当借助逻辑学，
哲学，语言学的原理为译者制定可
行的规则；
4. 意义的走失
11
巴塞尔哈蒂姆伊恩梅森英国翻译理论家他们认为：翻译者及跨语言跨文化交际者，在翻译研究上的贡献是从篇章语言学和话语分析的角度探讨和分析翻译问题。

第二讲当代翻译理论

2.3 Horace

Horace argues for the revitalization of well-known texts through a style that would “neither linger in the one hackneyed and easy round; neither trouble to render word by word with the faithfulness of a translator”, not treat the original writer‟s beliefs with too easy a trust, and would avoid stylistic over-sensationalism, “ so that the middle never strikes a different note from the beginning, nor the end from the middle.” His criticism of the faithful translator is often turned on its head to support translational fidelity to the original.

3.4.1 John Dryden‟s Three Categories of Translation 3.5 Alexander Fraser Tytler ( 1747-1813) 3.5.1 Tytler‟s Three General Principles

4. Romanticism in Translation Studies
another language

西方当代翻译思想与流派(II)知识讲解

5、文化学派翻译理论
“描述翻译研究”(descriptive translation studies)/“规定翻译研究”(prescriptive translation studies)
“目标语中心翻译研究”(target-oriented translation studies)
“多元系统研究” (polysystem approach)或“系统研究”(systemic perspective)
第四阶段源自20世纪90年代初勒菲弗尔、苏珊-巴斯奈特，《翻译、历史与文化》 (Translation，History and Culture)、《文化建构——文学翻译论集》(Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation) 。
翻译研究“文化转向”新发展趋势——翻译研究已从形式主义阶段走出，应该考虑更广泛的社会和文化语境，翻译像其他各种“改写”一样，创造出他者文本的新形象。
描写性翻译研究——研究翻译的过程、产物、以及功能的时候，把翻译放在时代之中去研究，是把翻译放到政治、意识形态、经济、文化之中去研究”（Descriptive translation studies—when
they attend to process, product, and function—set translation
这篇论文有两点特别值得注意：首先是它的清晰的翻译学的学科意识,其次是它对未来翻译学学科内容以图示的形式所作的详细的描述与展望。
霍尔姆斯讨论了“translatology”(翻译学)、“the theory of translating”或“the theory of translation”(翻译理论)、 “science of translation”或“translation science”(翻译科学) 等术语，并指出其各自的局限。最后他认为“translation studies”(翻译学)是所有术语中最适合作为学科名称的。

当代翻译理论

当代翻译理论
❖ 4. Descriptive Translation Studies
❖ 4.1 Holmes
❖ Holmes’s Translation Policy ❖ 4.2 Jeremy Munday
❖ 5 Development since 1970s
1. Introduction
As translation historian claim, the classical revival of the 19th century and the emphasis on technical accuracy, combined with a spirit of exclusivism among the intelligentsia, conspired to make the 19th century pedantic in its attitude towards translation. The 20th century witnessed a radical change in Western translation studies. In fact, 5 developments have had a significant effect on the theory and practice of translation during the 20th century:
❖ 4) Publication of ‘Babel’ , which helps translators get to know about new tools and aids and become aware of the changing conditions;
❖ 5) The development of various projects on machine translation which has progressed through different phases and provided us with important insights into semantic theory and of structural design.