-
1.
Explain the definition of
translation and the concept of “formal
correspondence” in the
view of Catford.
⑴
Translation
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
.
⑵
A 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.
①
Semantic
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.
②
Generally,
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,
i.e.
to
use
more
generic,
hold-all
terms
in
difficult
passages.
③
A 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.
④
One
basic
difference
between
the
two
methods
is
that
where
there
is
a
conflict,
the
communicative must emphasize the
“force” rather than the content of t
he
message, e.g.:
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。
⑤
However, 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?
①
Formal
equivalence
: a formal-equivalence
translation
is basically source-
oriented; that