当代翻译理论简介.共30页
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。
第四章 当代西方翻译理论
威密尔则突破了对等理论的限制 ,以文本目的(skopos)为翻译过程的第 一准则 ,发展了功能派的主要理论:目的论(skopos theory) 。威密尔所提 出的目的论(skopos theory)是功能派翻译理论中最重要的理论。skopos 是希腊词 ,意思是 “目的” 。根据目的论 ,所有翻译遵循的首要法则 就是 “目的法则” :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。这个目的有三种解释：译者的目的;译文的交际 目的;和使用某种特殊翻译手段所要达到的目的。通常情况下 , “目的” 是指译文的交际目的。
德国功能主义流派
二十世纪七十年代 ,德国出现一派翻译理论 — —功能派翻
译理论。功能派认为翻译(包括口、 笔译)是一种行为。其 理论的重点表现在三方面: (1)对翻译实质的阐释(2)对翻译 过程参与者的角色分析(3)功能翻译原则的提出。
谈到功能派,就不得不提及三位功能派翻译理论杰出的贡献
20世纪20年代起，前苏联的文学翻译得到发展的同时，翻
译研究也得到长足的进展。其最大特点就是一开始就和文 学翻译紧密联系在一起，但这时还是注重翻译作品的艺术 性。文艺学派开始于当时的俄国形式主义，代表人物为蒂 尼亚诺夫。
楚柯夫斯基的《崇高的艺术》一书问世后，被视为前苏联
译坛文艺学派的代表作之一，此书立足于大量丰富的翻译 实践，探讨了使翻译作品成为真正的艺术作品的途径。
纽马克在《翻译问题探讨》出版，立刻引起广泛赞誉。正
是在这本书中，他提出了“语义翻译”和交际翻译的概念。 此后，分别于1993年何1995年，又出版了《翻译短评》 （Paragraphs on Translation）和《翻译短评（第二集）》 （More paragraphs on Translation）。 翻译试图在译人语的语义和句法结构允许的范围内传达原 著的确切上下文意义。交际翻译试图对译文读者产生一种 效果 ，这效果要尽可能接近原文对读者所产生的效果。 语义翻译的服务对象是原语作者，交际翻译服务的对象是 译入语的读者 。这两种方法的一个根本区别在于：当出现 矛盾时，交际翻译必须强调“ 表现力” ，而不强调信息 的内容。
当代西方翻译理论
当代西方翻译理论当代西方翻译研究的三大突破，两大转向三大突破1）20世纪50年代以来的西方翻译研究开始从一般层面上的对两种语言转换的技术问题的研究，也即从“怎么译”的问题，深入到了对翻译行为本身的深层探究。
提出了语音、语法、语义等一系列的等值问题。
当代西方翻译研究中的等值论等研究，虽然有它的局限，但它对翻译所作的微观分析，无疑使人们对翻译的过程和目标，看得更加清楚了，更加透彻了。
2）当代西方的翻译研究不再局限于翻译文本本身的研究，而把目光投射到了译作的发起者、翻译文本的操作者和接受者身上。
它借鉴了接受美学、读者反应等理论，跳出了对译文与原文之间一般字面上的忠实与否之类问题的考察，而注意到了译作在新的文化语境里的传播与接受，注意到了翻译作为一种跨文化的传递行为的最终目的和效果，还注意到了译者在这整个的翻译过程中所起的作用。
3）当代翻译研究的最大突破还表现在把翻译放到一个宏大的文化语境中去审视。
研究者开始关注翻译研究中语言学科以外的其他学科的因素。
他们一方面认识到翻译研究作为一门独立学科的性质，另一方面又看到了翻译研究这门学科的多学科形式，注意到它不仅与语言学，而且还与文艺学、哲学甚至社会学、心理学等学科都有密不可分的关系。
但是翻译研究最终关注的当然还是文本在跨文化交际和传递中所涉及的一系列文化问题，诸如文化误读、信息增添、信息失落等。
两大转向1）语言学派的转向2）从文化层面来审视翻译的转向当代西方翻译理论语言学派理论从20世纪50年代起，西方出现了一批运用现代语言学的结构理论、转换生成理论、功能理论、话语理论、信息论等理论的学者，他们把翻译问题纳入到语言学的研究领域，从比较语言学、应用语言学、社会语言学、语义学、符号学、交际学等角度，提出了相对严谨的翻译理论和方法，开拓出了翻译研究的新领域，给传统的翻译研究注入了新的内容。
他们是当代西方翻译史上名副其实的翻译理论家，其中最主要的代表人物有：雅可布逊（Roman Jakobson）尤金·奈达（Eugen A. Nida）卡特福特（J.C. Catford）彼得·纽马克（Peter Newmark）从严格意义上而言，是这批学者对翻译问题的学术探讨，揭开了当代西方翻译史上的理论层面。
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。
西方近现代翻译理论
雅克·阿米欧（法语：Jacques Amyot，1513年－1593年）， 文艺复兴时期欧洲法国人文主义者。他以翻译古希腊作家的著作 而闻名。他最著名的译著是普鲁塔克的《希腊罗马名人传》 （1559年），这本译著不仅影响法国文学散文，而且，该书英文 转译也为莎士比亚的罗马历史剧提供了历史素材。
（英国）乔治·查普曼(George Chapman)
德西德里乌斯·伊拉斯谟（德语：Erasmus (Desiderius) von Rotterdam，又译埃拉斯默斯，史学界俗称鹿特丹的伊拉 斯谟），生于约1466年10月27日，卒于1536年7月12日），是 中世纪尼德兰（今荷兰和比利时）著名的人文主义思想家和 神学家。伊拉斯谟是一个用“纯正”拉丁语写作的古典学者。
---- 《论翻译的方法》 (Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersezens)
奥古斯特·威廉·施莱格尔（August Wilhelm Schlegel 1767年9月8日 – 1845年5月12日），德国诗人、翻译家及批评家， 并且是德国浪漫主义最杰出的领导者之一，他所翻译的莎士比亚 使得该作家的作品成为了德语经典著作。他不仅在美学、建筑学、 语言学、文艺批评等方面造诣颇深，而且在翻译领域也颇有建树， 堪称是一位出色的翻译家和翻译理论家。
（三）翻译必须考虑读者
（四）译者必须绝对服从原作的意思
（五）翻译可以借用外来词
（六）翻译分为三类：
①逐字译
Байду номын сангаас
②意译
③拟作
他将诗歌翻译分为三类：“逐字译”（metaphrase），“意译” （paraphrase）和“拟作”（imitation）。
当代西方翻译理论
从发展趋势上看，语言学翻译理论线已占据现代翻译理论
研究中的主导地位。理论学家们认为，翻译应归属与语言 学的研究范围，是应用语言学和比较语言学的一个分支， 与语言学有着密切的关系。
布拉格学派与雅各布逊
布拉格语言学派是继索绪尔之后最有影响的学派。该学派的突出贡献 是创立了音位学(Phonology)。他们对语言的基本观点是：1，在重视 历时语言研究的同时，强调共时语言研究的首要地位， 他们强调利用 分析比较方法去研究当代语言；2，语言是一个价值系统，不是千千 万万个毫不相干的孤立现象的汇合。因此，要分析语言成分和其他成 分的关系；3，因为各种表达手段都适用于不同的交际需要，因此要 研究分析实现各种功能的语体；4，应从语言功能入手，然后去研究 语言形式。 这一学派把对语言所持的观点运用到翻译研究上，他们对翻译的主要 论点是：1，翻译必须考虑语言的各种功能，如认识功能，表达功能， 工具功能等；2，翻译必须重视语义、语法、语音、语言风格及文学 体裁方面的比较。
2. 前苏联文艺学派在构筑他们的翻译理论时颇多
依赖哲学上的认知论，特别是列宁的反映论。
3. 前苏联文艺学派明确地把他们的研究纳入文艺
学的 研究范畴，他们的研究明显地具有文学研究 的性质。
第二节 翻译的语言流派
翻译的语言学派即根茨勒所说的翻译“科学”派。从历史
的发展看，翻译语言学派批判的继承了19世纪施莱尔马赫、 洪堡等人的语言学和翻译观。20世纪初索绪尔提出的普通 语言学理论，不仅为语言学的发展奠定了基础，同时也为 翻译的语言学派的确立注入了活力，使翻译的研究深入到 词、短语和句子的层次上，韩礼德的系统功能语法，布龙 菲尔德的结构语言学，乔姆斯基的转换生成语法等为翻译 语言学派提供了理论基础。
约翰卡特福德的语言翻译理论简介演示文稿
D. 翻译的转换
转换（shift）是卡特福德独创的术语。 定义：把原文变为译文时偏离形式对应。
分类：
1. 层次转换（level shifts）:
译文和原文所用的词语处于不同的语言层次上，也是指在语 法层次和词汇层次之间相互转换。
2. 范畴转换（category shifts）:
-Quelle heures est-il？ -What time is it？
-Il est très bien！
-It is very good!
-小野さんは どちらですか？ -小野女士是哪位？
第十四页，共26页。
就语言等级而言
1. 受限级： 固定在语言结构低层的翻译，即局限于词对词、词素对词素的 翻译。 意译：译者在层次结构上自由选择对等语，不受级的任何限 制。
14. (of a flag) be displayed, especially on a flagpole（旗）悬挂（尤指在旗杆上）
15. (N. Amer. informal)be successful(北美，非正式)成功
第二十五页，共26页。
名词： dad 爹， mom 妈， silk 丝， road 路， peel(水果的) 皮，seal 玺(=图章)，fatigue 疲“乏”， ------ dynasty 朝“代”，town 屯。
此外，还察觉 shout (喊叫)与“仰天长啸”的“啸”音义非 常近似； ------------bowl （碗）与“衣钵”的“钵”音义近似。
在英国的伦敦大学研修俄语和其他斯拉夫语以及东方语言和
非州语言（1948-1952） ,于1952年获文学硕士学位。卡 特福德除在英国和美国任职外 ,还受聘于中东、东南亚等 地的有关大学。他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 ,是一位颇有影响的语 言学家。
《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。
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
当代翻译理论
4. Descriptive Translation Studies
4.1 Holmes 4.1.1 The general branch of Holmes’s framework 4.1.2 The applied branch of Holmes’s framework 4.1.3 Holmes’s Translation Policy 4.2 Jeremy Munday
international conference of translation and began publishing a quarterly journal ( Bible Translation), for which they were in close contact with linguistics; 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.