文档介绍：该【翻译史考试试题 】是由【可爱的嘎嘎】上传分享，文档一共【6】页，该文档可以免费在线阅读，需要了解更多关于【翻译史考试试题 】的内容，可以使用淘豆网的站内搜索功能，选择自己适合的文档，以下文字是截取该文章内的部分文字，如需要获得完整电子版，请下载此文档到您的设备，方便您编辑和打印。 : .
1. Explain the definition of translation and the concept of “formal correspondence” in the
view of Catford.
⑴Translation may be defined as follows: the replacement of textual material in one
language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL).
The use of the term “textual material” underlines the fact that in normal conditions it is not
the entirety of a SL text which is translated, that is, replaced by TL equivalents. But at one or
more levels of language there may be simple replacement, by non-equivalent TL material.
Moreover, at one or more levels there may be no replacement at all, but simple transference of
SL material into the TL text.
The term “equivalent” is clearly a key term. The central problem of translation practice is
that of finding TL translation equivalents. A central task of translation theory is that of defining
the nature and conditions of translation equivalents.
⑵A formal correspondent is any TL category (unit, class, structure, etc.) which may be
said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the “same” place in the economy of the TL as the given SL
category occupies in the correspondence can be only approximate, and can only be
established ultimately on the basis of textual equivalence at some point.
3. What’s your understanding of “the nature of translation” in the light of Nida?
According to Nida, the nature of translating is: 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.
Explanation of the Nature of the Translation (pp12-14)
1. Translating must aim primarily at “reproducing the message”. To do anything else is : .
essentially false to one’s task as a translator.(aim)
2. The translator must strive for equivalence rather than identity. In a sense this is just
another way of emphasizing the reproduction of the message rather than the conservation of the
form of the utterance. (equivalence)
3. The best translation does not sound like a translation. It should studiously avoid
“translationese”—formal fidelity, with resulting unfaithfulness to the content and the impact of
the message.(natural)
4. A conscientious translator will want the closest natural equivalent because of the cultural
differences.
5. Meaning must be given priority, for it is the content of the message which is of prime
importance for translating, and to do anything else is essentially false to one’s task as a
translator.
6. Style is said secondary to content, but it is still important. One should not translate
poetry as though it were prose, nor expository material as though it were straight narrative.
5. Explain “semantic translation” and “communicative translation” proposed by
Newmark.
①Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic
structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.
Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to
that obtained on the readers of the original.
②Generally, a semantic translation tends to be more complex, more awkward, more : .
detailed, more concentrated, and pursues the thought-processes rather than the intention of the
transmitter. It tends to overtranslate, to be more specific than the original, to include more
meanings in its search for one nuance of meaning. A communicative translation is likely to be
smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conventional, conforming to a particular register
of language, tending to undertranslate, . to use more generic, hold-all terms in difficult
passages.
③A semantic translation is out of time and local space, where a communicative translation
is ephemeral and rooted in its context. A semantic translation attempts to preserve its author’s
idiolect, his peculiar form of expression. It relates to “expressive” function of language, where
communicative translation responds to the vocative function of language.
④One basic difference between the two methods is that where there is a conflict, the
communicative must emphasize the “force” rather than the content of the message, .:
Beware of the dog!
1) 当心狗！ 2） “狗咬人 ” 或“狗很凶 ”
Keep off the grass！
1）勿踏草坪！ 2）不要在草坪上行走。
Wet paint ！
1）“当心油漆！ ”或“油漆未干！ ” 2） 油漆刚刚喷上。
⑤However, in communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent-effect is
secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is only valid method of
translation.
4. “Formal equivalence”, “dynamic equivalence”, and “functional equivalence” are the
key concepts in Nida’s theories of translation. How do you understand them?
①Formal equivalence: a formal-equivalence translation is basically source-oriented; that : .
is, it is designed to reveal as much as possible of the form and content of the original message.
In doing so, an F-E translation attempts to reproduce several formal elements, including: 1.
grammatical units, 2. consistency in word usage, and 3. meanings in terms of the source context.
The reproduction of grammatical units may consist in: a） translating nouns by nouns,
verbs by verbs, etc.; b） keeping all phrases and sentences intact(. not splitting up and
readjusting the units); and c） preserving all formal indicators, . marks of punctuation,
paragraph breaks, and poetic indentation. In attempting to reproducing consistency in word
usage, an F-E translation usually aims at so-called concordance of terminology; that is, it always
renders a particular term in the source-language document by the corresponding term in the
receptor document. In order to reproduce meanings in terms of the source context, an F-E
translation normally attempts not to make adjustments in idioms, but rather to reproduce such
expressions more or less literally, so that the reader may be able to perceive something of the
way in which the original document employed local cultural elements to convey meanings.
②Dynamic equivalence: in contrast, a translation which attempts to produce a dynamic
rather than a formal equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent effect.
In such a translation the focus of attention is directed toward the receptor response. One
way of defining a D- E translation is to describe it as “the closest natural equivalent to the
source-language message.” This type of definition contains three essential terms: 1) equivalent,
which points toward the source-language message, 2) natural, which points toward the receptor
language, and 3) closest, which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest
degree of approximation.
However, since a D-E translation is directly primarily toward equivalence of response : .
rather than equivalence of form, it is important to define more fully the implications of the word
“natural” as applied to such translation. Basically, the word “natural” is applicable to three areas
of the communication process; for a natural rendering must fit 1) the receptor language and
culture as a whole, 2) the context of the particular message, and 3) the receptor-language
audience.
③Functional equivalence: Basically, dynamic equivalence has been described in terms of
functional equivalence. The translation process has been defined on the basis that the receptors
of a translation should comprehend the translated text to such an extent that they can understand
how the original receptors must have understood the original text. The expression “dynamic
equivalence” has, however, led to some confusion, since the term “dynamic” has been
understood merely in terms of something which has impact and appeal. Accordingly, to avoid
misunderstanding the expression “functional equivalence” is employed, particularly since the
twin bases for effective translation seem to be best represented in a sociosemiotic and
sociolinguistic orientation, in which the focus is upon function.
The translator must seek to employ a functionally equivalent set of forms which in so far as
possible way will match the meaning of the original source-language text.
6. Who is Cicero? Who is Schleiermacher? Who is Tytler? What are their views on translation
respectively?
⑴西塞罗 （Cicero106—.）罗马演说家，哲学家，修辞学家，作家兼翻译家。他精通拉丁语
和希腊语。他把柏拉图的《蒂迈欧篇》和荷马史诗《奥德赛》由希腊语译成拉丁语，他的著作有《论最
优秀的演说家》，《论善与恶的定义》，其中某些章节涉及翻译。
他对翻译的看法：
① 译者应象演说家那样，使用符合古罗马语言习惯来表现内容，以吸引扩大读者。
② 直译是缺乏技巧的表现，应该避免逐字死译，翻译应该保留词语最内层的东西— : .
—意义。译者的责任是给读者称出原词的重量而不是数量。
③ 翻译也是文学创作，任何翻译必须是其人。
④ 声音与意义自然相联系，词与词义在功能上不可分割，各种语言的修辞手段是相
通的。
可见，他认为翻译是能够找到对等语的，风格也是可译的。更重要的是他主张活译。从他开始，就
出现了直译，活译的讨论。
⑵弗里德里希·施莱尔马赫（ Friedrich Schleiermacher 1768--1834 ）德国人。于 1813 年发表一
论文《论翻译的方法》 。他说：
①翻译分笔译和口译。口译指关于商业的翻译，笔译是关于文学、艺术、科学的翻译。 （他是西方第
一个明确区分笔译和口译的人）
②翻译分真正的翻译和机械的翻译，真正的翻译是指文学、艺术、科学的翻译。
③翻译必须正确理解语言和思维的辨证关系，一方面每个人都受到所说语言的制约，任何在语言范
围之外的东西说话人都不可能明确想到。思想概念的形成，这些概念相互联结的方式和程度都是说话人
从小开始习得语言所安排的，说话人的智能和想象也都是由他来控制的，但另一方面，凡是思想自由，
智能独立的人都能创造语言。
④翻译有两种不同途径，一是尽可能不扰乱原作者的安宁，让读者去接近作者；另一个是尽可能不
扰乱读者