翻譯的語言學(xué)方法

ContemporaryWestern

TranslationTheories

(1960s-Present)Contents1.Linguistic/ScientificApproachestoTranslation/TheScienceofTranslation語言學(xué)派/科學(xué)派翻譯理論/翻譯科學(xué)派2.FunctionalistApproachestoTranslation

功能學(xué)派翻譯理論3.DescriptiveApproachestoTranslation

描寫學(xué)派翻譯理論4.CulturalStudiesApproachestoTranslation

文化學(xué)派翻譯理論5.PhilosophicalApproachestoTranslation

哲學(xué)派翻譯理論6.CongnitiveApproachestoTranslation

認(rèn)知學(xué)派翻譯理論7.EmpiricalResearchinTranslationStudiesReference:馬慧娟，苗菊(ed.)SelectedReadingsofContemporaryWesternTranslationTheories

（當(dāng)代西方翻譯理論選讀)[C].Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress.LinguisticApproachestoTranslation

（語言學(xué)派）ReferenceNida,E.A.TowardAScienceofTranslating(《翻譯科學(xué)探索》)[M].1964.Chapter6:“PrinciplesofCorrespondence”Newmark,P.ApproachestoTranslation(《翻譯問題探討》)[M].1981.Chapter3:“CommunicativeandSemanticTranslation”Neubert,A.&G.Shreve.TranslationasText[M].1992.

GeneralIntroductionTranslationwasnotinvestigatedscientificallyuntilthe1960sintheWesternhistoryoftranslationasagreatnumberofscholarsandtranslatorsbelievedthattranslationwasanartoraskill.Linguistic/Scientificapproachestotranslationlingusitically-orientedtranslationtheories

1960s:TheScienceofTranslation(翻譯科學(xué)派).EugeneNida(Americanlinguistandtranslationtheorist):TowardaScienceofTranslating

(《翻譯科學(xué)探索》1964).BasedonNoamChomsky’sgenerative-transformationalgrammar:SyntacticStructures

(1957),AspectsoftheTheoryofSyntax

(1965)：Basecomponent–adeepstructure–asurfacestructure.JohnCatford(Britishlinguistandtranslationtheorist):ALinguisticTheoryofTranslation

(《翻譯的語言學(xué)理論》1965).BasedonM.A.K.Halliday(Britishlinguist):systemicfunctionalgrammar(系統(tǒng)功能語法).WolframWills

(Germanlinguistandtranslationtheorist):TheScienceofTranslation:ProblemsandMethods

(《翻譯科學(xué)：?jiǎn)栴}與方法》1977，1982).InfluencedbyNida’stheory.Linguistically-orientedtranslationtheories:focuson“translationequivalence”(翻譯對(duì)等):Examples:Nida’stranslationmodeliscloselyrelatedtodynamicequivalenceandformalequivalence.Catford’stranslationmodeldistinguishesbetweenformalcorrespondence(形式對(duì)應(yīng))

andtextualequivalence

(文本等值).Wills’stranslationmodel:text-pragmaticequivalence(文本語用等效).WernerKoller

(Germantranslationtheorist)’stranslationmodel:Kollerclassifiesequivalenceintodenotativeequivalence(外延/所指等值),connotativeequivalence(內(nèi)涵對(duì)等),text-normativeequivalence(文本規(guī)范等值),pragmaticequivalence(語用對(duì)等).Currentcontroversiesonthetheoryof“translationequivalence”Criticisms:Snell-Hornby:“Equivalenceisunsuitableasabasicconceptintranslationtheory”becauseitis“impreciseandill-defined”(1988:22)Supports:PeterFawcett:translationequivalence“continuestobeusedintheeverydaylanguageoftranslationbecausetheyrepresenttranslationreality”(2007:62)RepresentativesEugeneNida:DynamicEquivalenceandFormalEquivalence(動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等翻譯理論).PeterNewmark(Britishtranslationtheorist):SemanticandCommunicativeTranslation(語義翻譯與交際翻譯理論).AlbrechtNeubert(Germantranslationtheorist):TranslationasText(語篇翻譯理論).EugeneA.Nida(1914-)

(尤金·奈達(dá))AdistinguishedAmericantranslationtheoristandlinguist.“Thepatriarch(元老)oftranslationstudyandafounderofthediscipline”.WorkingfortheAmericanBibleSociety(ABS)afterreceivinghisPhDinlinguisticsin1943,tocheckandevaluatethepublicationsofBibles.

Nida’sPublications:

LinguisticInterludes(《語言學(xué)對(duì)話錄》)

(1944/1947);Morphology:TheDescriptiveAnalysisofWords(1949);MessageandMission:TheCommunicationoftheChristianFaith(1960);Customs,CultureandChristianity

(1963);TowardaScienceofTranslating(翻譯科學(xué)探索)(1964);ReligionAcrossCultures

(1968);TheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation

(1969,withC.R.Taber);

LanguageStructureandTranslation:Essays

(1975);

FromOneLanguagetoAnother

(1986,withJandeWaard);TheGreek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestamentBasedonSemanticDomains

(1988,withLouw);Language,CultureandTranslating(1993).LanguageandCulture:ContextsinTranslating

(2001).Nida’sTheoryDynamicequivalencetranslationtheory:hismajorcontributiontotranslationstudies.Theoryofdynamicequivalence:1)proposedinTowardaScienceofTranslating

(《翻譯科學(xué)探索》)(1964);2)Nida’sDefinitionofdynamicequivalencetranslation:“Intermsofthedegreetowhichthereceptorsofthemessageinthereceptorlanguagerespondtoitinsubstantiallythesamemannerasthereceptorsinthesourcelanguage.”

(Nida,TheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation,1969:24)3)“Dynamicequivalence”wasreplacedby“functionalequivalence”inFromOneLanguagetoAnother:

FunctionalEquivalenceinBibleTranslating(1986).Justtostresstheconceptoffunctionandtoavoidmisunderstandingsoftheterm.4)Functionalequivalenceisfurtherdividedintocategoriesontwolevels:theminimallevelandthemaximallevelinLanguage,CultureandTranslating

(1993).Theminimallevelofthefunctionalequivalence:“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletocomprehendittothepointthattheycanconceiveofhowtheoriginalreadersofthetextmusthaveunderstoodandappreciatedit.”Themaximallevelofthefunctionalequivalence:“Thereadersofatranslatedtextshouldbeabletounderstandandappreciateitinessentiallythesamemannerastheoriginalreadersdid.”(Nida,1993:118).Theminimallevelisrealisticwhereasthemaximallevelisideal.Nida:goodtranslationsalwaysliesomewherebetweenthetwolevels(Nida,1995:224)Functionalequivalenceisaflexibleconceptwithdifferentdegreesofadequacy.Thenatureofdynamicequivalence:“receptors’response”.Shiftfrom“theformofthemessage”to“theresponseofthereceptor”.Itseekstomakethesameimpactwithoutregardtotheformoftheoriginallanguage.Focusonfreetranslationanddomestication.Dynamicequivalence:“Thequalityofatranslationinwhichthemessageoftheoriginaltexthasbeensotransportedintothereceptorlanguagethattheresponseofthereceptorisessentiallylikethatoftheoriginalreceptors.”(Nida,TheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation,202).DynamicequivalencehasbeenwidelyadoptedbyBibletranslators.Forinstance,TheNewChineseversionoftheBible(today’sChineseVersion)andothernewtranslationsoftheBibleallfollowtheprincipleofdynamicequivalence.Nida’stranslationtheoryofdynamicequivalencehasbeenquestionedandchallengedsince1980s:Somescholarsexpresstheirdoubtsabouttheapplicationofdynamicequivalencetogeneraltranslationpractice,especiallyliterarytranslation.Gentzler:Nida’stheoryisonlyusefulfortranslationsofpropaganda,advertisementorcertainreligiousmaterials;butitcouldnotprovidethebasisforageneraltranslationtheory(1993:60)Nidamakesfulluseofthenewdevelopmentoflinguistics,

semantics,informationtheory,communicationtheoryandsociosemioticsinanattempttoexplorethevariouslinguisticandculturalfactorsinvolvedintranslation.NidasuggeststhatitismoreeffectivetotransferthemeaningfromtheSLtotheTLonthekernellevel(deepstructure),akeyconceptinChomsky’stheory.Nida’sTranslationTheoryofBack-transformation(逆轉(zhuǎn)換理論)

為了闡釋動(dòng)態(tài)對(duì)等，奈達(dá)借鑒經(jīng)典轉(zhuǎn)換生成語法理論中的“核心句”(kernelsentence)和“轉(zhuǎn)換”等概念，提出了著名的逆轉(zhuǎn)換翻譯理論。

這個(gè)曲折的過程包括四個(gè)階段：分析、轉(zhuǎn)換、重組和檢驗(yàn)。圖示如下：

具體地說，就是在對(duì)原文進(jìn)行語法語義分析的基礎(chǔ)上，將其從表層結(jié)構(gòu)逆轉(zhuǎn)換為深層結(jié)構(gòu)，然后傳譯到譯文深層結(jié)構(gòu)，最后再從譯文深層結(jié)構(gòu)轉(zhuǎn)換為譯文表層結(jié)構(gòu)。最后對(duì)譯文進(jìn)行比較和檢驗(yàn)。著名的逆轉(zhuǎn)換翻譯模式—三段式轉(zhuǎn)換，即：

a.追溯原文句子結(jié)構(gòu)最簡(jiǎn)單、語義最清楚的核心句(kernelsentence)；

b.將核心句從原語中譯出；

c.按照譯出的核心句生成譯語中的表層句子。PeterNewmark(1916-)

(彼特·紐馬克)

/link?url=ViW_0ut02-nUD5RBff2AZ_YSv5eh4MrUHfW12CGamEUQ6M6OSGec4WPQ_Q_hOjBnF7jFHKfdWSLaw9a8TRJFLqAnaccomplishedBritish

translationtheoristandanexperiencedtranslator.Newmark’sPublications(ontranslation)ApproachestoTranslation《翻譯問題探討》(1981)ATextbookofTranslation

《翻譯教程》(1988)AboutTranslation

《翻譯論》(1991)MoreParagraphsonTranslation

《翻譯短評(píng)》(1993).Newmark’sTranslationTheoryTwotypesoftranslation:SemanticTranslationCommunicativeTranslation.(Newmark,ApproachestoTranslation,1981)Semantictranslation:focusesonthesemanticcontentofthesourcetext;Communicativetranslation:focusesonthecomprehensionandresponseofreceptors.ThisdistinctionisinasensesimilartoNida’sdistinctionof“formalequivalenttranslation”and“dynamicequivalenttranslation”Threemaintypesoftexts:

Expressivetext(表達(dá)功能文本)(semantictranslation)Informativetext(信息功能文本)(communicativetranslation)Vocativetext

(呼喚功能文本)(communicativetranslation)(Newmark,A

TextbookofTranslation,1988)Newmarkadmitsthatfewtextsarepurelyexpressive,informativeorvocative(1988:47)ExpressiveTextsThecoreisthespeakerorauthorFocusisontheirexpressionofmeaningsandemotions;Thereceptors’responseisignoredTypicalexpressivetexts:－

seriousliteraryworks.e.g.lyrics,shortstories,novels,drama,etc.－authoritativespeeches.e.g.celebrityaddresses,legaldocuments,scientific,philosophicalandacademicworksbyauthoritativefigures,etc.,whichdemonstratethespeakers/authors’individuality.－biography,prose,privateletterTranslationofexpressivetextsobserve“authorfirst”principle,putfocusonoriginalauthorbefaithfultoboththecontentandlanguagestyleofthesourcetextThetranslatorhaslittlefreedomtomakeachangeormodificationtothesourcetext.InformativeTextsFocusisontheextra-linguisticcontext/factors,thefactsinvolved,etc.Importanceisattachedto“truthfulness”,Theauthor’sindividualityislargelydiminishedTypicalinformativetexts:－textsaboutencyclopedicknowledge,e.g.textbooks,technicalreports,newspaper/magazinearticles,academicpapers,memo,minutes(會(huì)議記錄),etc.

Translationofinformativetextsobserve“truthfulnessfirst”principle,beorientedtothereceptors’accessibilityandacceptability,ThetranslatorhasgreaterfreedomtomakeachangeormodificationtothesourcetextifnecessaryVocativeTextsThecoreistheaddressee;Orientedtotheaddressees’actionorreactionaccordingtotheauthor’sintentionsTypicalvocativetexts:Practicalwritingssuchasinstructions,guidelines,propaganda,applications,popularwritingsforteaching,etc.TranslationofvocativetextsThetranslatorshouldtakeintoconsiderationthelinguisticandculturalbackgroundofSTandpragmaticeffectofTT.e.g.“驢打滾”

(蒸熟的江米裹上甜豆面粉)—aChinesedishTranslation:glutinousricerollswithsweetbeanflourIf“donkey”(驢)occurredintheEnglishversion,itwouldpuzzletheEnglishspeakers.Differentmethodsfordifferenttypesoftexts:

—semantictranslationforexpressivetexts;—communicativetranslationforinformativeandvocativetexts.Correlativeapproachtotranslation(翻譯關(guān)聯(lián)法):coexistenceofsemanticandcommunicativetranslation.

AlbertNeubertAprominentGermantranslationtheorist,aleadingfigureintranslationstudiesforover30years.

Anemeritus

professor

oftranslatologyat

LeipzigUniversityCo-founderoftheinfluentialGermanLeipzigSchoolofTranslationTheory

(來比錫學(xué)派),characterizedbyalinguistically-oriented,scientificapproach(text-linguisticapproach)totranslation.Thisschoolhadmadesignificantcontributionstotranslationstudies,andshedlightontheGermanfunctionalismaswell.CERNChairofTranslationatLeuvenUniversity.GuestprofessorshipsatSUNYBinghamtonUniversity(TheStateUniofNewYork)andKentStateUniversity.HehelpedtofoundtheInstituteforAppliedLinguisticsatKentStateUniversity,nowacenterforAmericantranslationstudies.Neubert

isinsightfulandfar-sighted.Hehelpedtoestablishthewidespreadmovementtointroduceformalandempiricalrigorintotranslationstudies.LeipzigUniversityLeipzigUniversityNeuberttakesatext-linguisticapproachtotranslation.Textlinguistics

isabranchof

linguistics

thatdealswith

texts

ascommunicationsystems/thestudyofhowtextsfunctioninhumaninteraction.Textlinguisticstakesintoaccounttheformofatext,butalsoitssetting,i.e.thewayinwhichitissituatedinaninteractional,communicativecontext.Boththeauthorofa(writtenorspoken)textaswellasitsaddressees

aretakenintoconsiderationintheirrespective(socialand/orinstitutional)rolesinthespecificcommunicativecontext.AccordingtoHalliday,textisasignrepresentationofasocio-culturaleventembeddedinacontextofsituation.Contextofsituationisthe

semio-socio-culturalenvironmentinwhichthetextunfolds.Textandcontextaresointimatelyrelatedthatneitherconceptcanbecomprehendedintheabsenceoftheother.Threevariablesofcontextofsituation/registerFieldofdiscourse(語場(chǎng))–experientialmeaning

－“thefocusoftheactivityinwhichweareengaged”,bothintermsofthetopicandthesocialactivitytype;－includingacontinuumoftechnicality

(專門性/專業(yè)性),rangingfrom“technical,specialized”to“commonsense,everyday”.Withregardtofield,therelativedegreeoftechnicalityofatext

mayposetranslationdifficulties.Forinstance,InEnglish,differentwordsareusedtorefertodifferentkindsofbeer,dependingonhowstrongtheyare,theircolor,texture,taste,etc..e.g.,lager,ale,stoutorbitter.However,inCatalan(alocaldialectinSpain),forinstance,thereisonlyonewordforbeer(cervesa),andthesameistrueofSpanish(cerveza).Itisimpossible,therefore,tobeso‘technical’(i.e.precise)ineitheroftheselanguagesasonecanbeinEnglish.Whenfaced,inareallifesituation,withsuchwordsas“stout”or“bitter”,theSpanishorCatalantranslatorwillhavetosettleforthehypernym

(上義詞)becausetherearesimplynolexicalizedhyponymsinhis/herlanguage(i.e.thesemanticfieldinquestionisnotsowelldevelopedintheselanguagesasitisinEnglish)or,alternatively,willhavetoresorttoperiphrasis(迂回說法)orexplanation.Tenorofdiscourse(語旨)

–interpersonalmeaning－themeaningthattherolesofandrelationshipsamongparticipantsgivetotheunderstandingofthetext;－“thesocialrolerelationshipsplayedbyinteractants”,whichcanbebrokendownintothreecontinua:power:equal/unequal;contact:frequent/occasional(degreeoffamiliarity);affectiveinvolvement:high/low.Withregardtotenor,twoaspectswillbehighlightedaspotentialsourcesoftranslationproblems:termsofaddress(includingpersonalpronouns)andmodality.Powerrelations,aswellas(differing)degreesoffamiliarityandaffection,areusuallyconveyedthroughpersonalpronounsandtermsofaddress(whichincludetitles,honorifics,termsofendearment,etc.).Inotherwords,alltheserelationsmaybeexpressedgrammaticallyorlexically.Whenexpressedgrammatically,notalllanguageshavethesameresourcesavailable;onthecontrary,thereisoftenlackoffitbetweengrammaticalsystemsacrosslanguages.Acaseinpointisthatofpersonalpronounsystems,especiallythoseconcerningtheso-calledT/Vdistinctionfor2ndpersonpronouns,(i.e.Vpron,indicatingsomedegreeofrespect,formality,distance;Tpron,indicatingtheoppositevalues:familiarity,casualness,intimacy).Thisdistinctionismade,forinstance,inFrench(tu/vous),German(du/Sie),Spanish(tú/usted),Catalan(tu/vostè),Chinese(您/你)andmanyotherlanguagesbutnotincontemporaryEnglish.Thislackoffitmaygiverisetoallkindsofproblemsintranslation.e.g.whentranslatingfromEnglishintooneofthoselanguageswiththeT/Vpronoundistinction,theprocessoftranslationproperhastobeprecededbydetailedanalysisofthetenorvariablesandassessmentofthedifferentsolutions.Choiceoftheappropriatesecond-personpronouninatargetlanguagewhichoffersmorethanonepossibilitywillonlybepossiblewhenalltheaspectsoftherelationship

(e.g.powerrelation,frequencyofcontact,degreeofaffection)inquestionhavebeentakenintoaccount.Modeofdiscourse(語式)

–logicalmeaning－themeaningthatthelanguage,writtenorspoken,givestotheunderstandingofthetext.－“therole

language

playsinaninteraction”,whichinvolvestwosimultaneouscontinua:Spatial/interpersonaldistancebetweentheparticipants,intermsofsuchvariablesasvisualand/orauralcontactandfeedbackpossibilities;Experientialdistance:distancebetweenlanguageandthesocialprocessoccurring,intermsofwhetherlanguageaccompaniesthesocialprocessorconstitutesitentirely.Thecombinationofthesetwocontinuawouldyieldatleastthefollowingvariablesinmode:+/–interactive,+/–face-to-face,+/–languageasaction,+/–spontaneous,+/–casual(bothinspokenandwrittenlanguage).Ingeneral,itisanapplicationof

discourseanalysis

atthemuchbroaderleveloftext,ratherthanjustasentenceorword.Propertiesoftext:

BeaugrandeandDressler(1981)defineatextasa“communicativeoccurrencewhichmeetssevenstandardsoftextuality(文本性)”:Cohesion(銜接性)Coherence(連貫性)Intentionality(意圖性)Acceptability(可接受性)

Informativity(信息性)Situationality(情景性)

Intertextuality(互文性)withoutanyofwhichthetextwillnotbecommunicative.Non-communicativetextsaretreatedasnon-texts.(1)CohesionCohesion

concernsthewaysinwhichthecomponentsofthesurfacetextareconnectedwithinasequence.e.g.

SLOW

CARS

HELDUPSuchatextcanbeinterpretedinvariousways:Itmightbeconstruedasanoticeabout"slowcars"thatare"heldup',sothatconclusionscouldbedrawnabouttheneedtodrivefasttoavoidbeingheldup.However,itismorelikelytodividethetextinto"slow"and"carsheldup',sothatdriverswilldriveslowlytoavoidaccidentsortakealternativeroutestoavoidbeingcaughtintheslowtraffic.Ascienceoftextshouldexplainhow

ambiguities

suchasthisarepossible,aswellashowtheyareprecludedorresolvedwithoutmuchdifficulty.Forefficientcommunicationtotakeplacetheremustbeinteractionbetweencohesionandotherstandardsoftextualitybecausethesurfacetextaloneisnotdecisive.(2)CoherenceCoherence

concernsthewaysinwhichconceptsandrelations,whichunderliethesurfacetext,arelinked,relevantandused,toachieveefficientcommunication.Aconceptisacognitivecontentwhichcanberetrievedortriggeredwithahighdegreeof

consistency

inthemind;Relationsarethelinksbetweenconceptswithinatext.Surfacetextsmaynotalwaysexpressrelationsexplicitly,thereforepeoplesupplyasmanylinksasareneededtomakesenseoutofanyparticulartext.Intheexampleoftheroadsign"SLOWCARSHELDUP',"cars"isanobjectconceptand"heldup"an

actionconcept,andthe"cars"arelinkedto"heldup'.Therefore,"slow"ismorelikelytobeinterpretedasamotionthanasthespeedatwhichcarsaretravelling.(3)IntentionalityIntentionality

concernsthetextproducer'sattitudeandintentionsasthetextproducerusescohesionandcoherencetoattainagoalspecifiedinaplan.Withoutcohesionandcoherence,intendedgoalsmaynotbeachievedduetoabreakdownofcommunication.However,dependingontheconditionsandsituationsinwhichthetextisused,thegoalmaystillbeattainedevenwhencohesionandcoherencearenotupheld.“WantIcarryyouonmyback?”Eventhoughcohesionisnotmaintainedinthisexample,thetextproducerstillsucceedsinachievingthegoaloffindingoutifthetextreceiverwantedapiggyback.(4)AcceptabilityAcceptability

concernsthetextreceiver'sdesirethatthetextshouldconstituteusefulorrelevantdetailsorinformationsothatitisworthaccepting.Texttype,thedesirabilityofgoalsandthepoliticalandsocioculturalsetting,aswellascohesionandcoherenceareimportantininfluencingtheacceptabilityofatext.Textproducersoftenspeculateonthereceiver'sattitudeofacceptabilityandpresenttextsthatmaximizestheprobabilitythatthereceiverswillrespondasdesiredbytheproducers.(5)InformativityInformativity

concernstheextenttowhichthecontentsofatextarealreadyknownorexpectedascomparedtounknownorunexpected.Nomatterhowexpectedorpredictablethecontentmaybe,atextwillalwaysbeinformativeatleasttoacertaindegreeduetounforeseenvariability.Theprocessingofhighlyinformativetextdemandsgreatercognitiveabilitybutatthesametimeismoreinteresting.Thelevelofinformativityshouldnotexceedsuchapointthatthetextbecomestoocomplicatedandcommunicationisendangered.Conversely,thelevelofinformativityshouldalsonotbesolowthatitresultsinboredomandtherejectionofthetext.(6)SituationalitySituationality

concernsthefactorswhichmakeatextrelevanttoasituationofoccurrence.Thesituationinwhichatextispresentedinfluencesthecomprehensionofthetext.Theremaybedifferentinterpretationswiththeroadsign

SLOW

CARS

HELDUPHowever,themostlikelyinterpretationofthetextisobviousbecausethesituationinwhichthetextispresentedprovidesthecontextwhichinfluenceshowtextreceiversinterpretthetext.Thegroupofreceivers(motorists)whoarerequiredtoprovideaparticularactionwillfinditmorereasonabletoassumethat"slow"requiresthemtoslowdownratherthanreferringtothespeedofthecarsthatareahead.Pedestrianscantelleasilythatthetextisnotdirectedtowardsthembecausevaryingtheirspeedsisinconsequentialandirrelevanttothesituation.Inthisway,thesituationdecidesthesenseanduseofthetext.Situationalitycanaffectthemeansofcohesion;lesscohesivetextmaybemoredependentonthesituationthanmorecohesivetext.Iftheroadsignwas"Motoristsshouldreducetheirspeedandproceedslowlybecausethevehiclesaheadareheldupbyroadworks,thereforeproceedingattoohighaspeedmayresultinanaccident”,everypossibledoubtofthereceiverswouldberemoved.However,motoristsonlyhaveaveryshortamountoftimeandattentiontofocusonandreacttoroadsigns.Therefore,insuchacase,economicaluseoftextismuchmoreeffectiveandappropriatethanafullycohesivetext.(7)IntertextualityIntertextuality

concernsthefactorswhichmaketheutilizationofonetextdependentuponknowledgeofoneormorepreviouslyencounteredtext.Ifatextreceiverdoesnothavepriorknowledgeofarelevanttext,communicationmaybreakdownbecausetheunderstandingofthecurrenttextisobscured.Textssuchasparodies

(仿擬),rebuttals(反駁),forumsandclassesinschool,thetextproducerhastorefertopriortextswhilethetextreceiversshouldhaveknowledgeofthepriortextsforcommunicationtobeefficientorevenoccur.AlbrechtNeubertInthebookTranslationasText

(AlbrechtNeubert

&

GregoryShreve,1992),manyideasregardingtext-linguistic,sociolinguistic,andpsycholinguisticmodelsoftranslationarediscussed.AlbrechtNeubertText-linguisticmodeloftranslation:“top-down”textproductionfortranslation(倒置模式).Theessentialtranslationunitistheentiretext,fromwhichonecalculatesbackwardstoarriveattheglobalproposition,whichisthendividedintosmaller,single,transportablesemanticunits,whilemeaningisalsocarriedgloballyinthetext.Itisa“top-down”recreationofthetextthroughthepurposefulselectionoftargetlanguageresources.TranslationasText(Nuebert&Sherve,1992)Neubert

assumesatextualperspectiveontranslation,asthetextistheprimaryobjectofresearch,andisregardedashavingthepotentialtoactasaunifyingconceptinthedisciplineoftranslationstudy.Hecommentedthatthepreviouslinguisticapproachtreatstranslationasaspecifictypeoflanguageusewithoutconsideringtheexternalorextralinguisticfactors

suchascriticalnormsortheconstraintsofpractice.Text-linguisticapproachtotranslation:Whatistransferredintranslationisnotmeanings,butrather,thecommunicativevaluesofthesourcetext.Itistext-based,emphasizingthecommunicativecontextualizationofwordsandmeanings.Thetext-linguisticmodeloftranslationisadistinctapproachwiththetextualsystemsoftwocommunicatingcommunitiesastheframeofreference.IdeasinTranslationasTextWiththeadventoftext-linguistics,amorecomplexviewisbeingintroduced—thetext-linguisticperspective,whichhasbroughttotranslationstudiesare-interpretationofgrammaticalandlexicaldistinctionsaswellasanexplorationofcorrespondencesbeyondthesentencelevel.Disregardingtheroleofthetextwaslikefailingtoseethewoodforthetrees.Translatingthewordsandstructurescorrectlydoesnotguaranteeanadequatetranslation.“Translation,Text,TranslationStudies”

byAlbertNeubert(Selectedfrom

TranslationasText,Chapter1)TranslationandparadoxTranslationandtextModelsoftranslationThelinguisticmodelThetext-linguisticmodelTranslationandparadoxParadox

(p58-61)(onethingwithtwooppositefeatures)(1)Translabilityvs.untranslabilityNeubert:untranslabilityAsourcetextisembeddedinacomplexlinguistic,textual,andculturalc