CHAPTER I HISTORY OF INTERPRETING AND ESTABLISHING OF THE THEORY OF TRANSLATION.. 5
1.1 History of translation. 5
1.2 Development of the theory of translation in the twentieth century. 9
1.3 Models and types of interpreting. 12
CHAPTER II CHARACTERISTICS OF WRITTEN TRANSLATION TYPES. 17
2.1 Types of written translation. 17
2.2. Written Translation Procedures, Strategies and Methods. 19
2.3 Peculiarities of translation of literature text 24
CHAPTER I HISTORY OF INTERPRETING AND ESTABLISHING OF THE THEORY OF TRANSLATION
1.1 History of translation
... Throughout the 18th century, the watchword of translators was ease of reading. Whatever they did not understand in a text, or thought might bore readers, they omitted. They cheerfully assumed that their own style of expression was the best, and that text should be made to conform to it in translation. For scholarship they cared no more than had their predecessors, and they did not shrink from making translations from translations in third languages, or from languages that they hardly knew, or – as in the case of James Macpherson's “translations” of Ossian – from texts that were actually of the “translator's” own composition. The 19th century brought new standards of accuracy and style. In regard to accuracy, observes J.M.Cohen, the policy became “the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text”, except for any bawdy passages and the addition of copious explanotory footnotes. In regard to style, the Victorians' aim, achieved through far-reaching metaphrase or pseudo-metaphrase, was to constantly remind readers that they were reading a foreign classic. An exception was the outstanding translation in this period. Edward FitzGerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (1859), which achieved its Oriental Flavor largely by using Persian names and discreet Biblical echoes and actually drew little of its material from the Persian original. In advance of the 20th century, a new pattern was set in 1871 by Benjamin Jowett, who translated Plato into simple, straightforward language. Jowett's example was not followed, however, until well into the new century, when accuracy rather than style became the principal criterion. ...
1.2 Development of the theory of translation in the twentieth century
... According to Nida's the definition of "so-called translation, refers to the style from the semantic (style) in the target language using the most natural reproduction of the original language, such as the phrase information." Three of them are the key: First, "in accord with the natural," I can not have translation cavity; second is the "natural" choice on the basis of the closest to the original meaning and asked the third is a "reciprocal", this is the core. Therefore, the translation must meet four criteria: (a) to express (b) and vivid; (c) natural language English and (d) similar to the reader responses. (3) Translation function. From the social linguistics and language communication function standpoint, Nida that must be translated for readers service targets. (4) The correct translation. Translation: correct depends on to what extent the readers can understand correctly asked. (5) Semantic analysis. One of the important process of translation of the original is a semantic analysis. Semantics can be divided into three types: grammatical meaning, the meaning and significance of connotations. (6) The procedures and methods of translation. In his view, the entire translation process is divided into four steps: analysis, interpretation, Reorganization (language translation by the rules of re-organization asked) and examined. Since the 1980s, the translation of theory Nida a larger change. The main new viewpoints: (1) Translation is not science, but technology; (2) Translation can be born; (3) translation is not only a language communicative activities, but also a symbol of social interaction (sociosemiotic interaction) activities. In addition, there are more representative of Germany's Leipzig School and the former Soviet Union, such as schools. In short, the 20th century theory of the development of the West's largest translation feature is included in translation studies linguistics, comparative linguistics and applied linguistics and semantics, and other established intrinsically linked. Although the western translation theory has achieved tremendous successes, but they are in the tradition of succession on the basis of, and did not form a complete, universal theoretical system. ...
CHAPTER II CHARACTERISTICS OF WRITTEN TRANSLATION TYPES
2.3 Peculiarities of translation of literature text
... G.Gachechiladze speculates a lot on stylistic weakening opposing it to the full-fledged literary translation, “The main goal of Literary Translation is the enriching of the national literature and serving its interests, whereas literal translation sets the opposite goal – to reproduce the form of the original text.” For example, the famous Goethe`s poem “The song of the stranger in the night” was translated by several Russian poets, “but only Lermontov managed to render the spirit of this poem”, writes Gachechiladze.
|M. Lermontov:||V. Briusov:|
|Горные вершины||На всех вершинах|
|Спят во тьме ночной,||Покой;|
|Тихие долины||В листве, в долинах|
|Полны свежей мглой;||Ни одной|
|Не пылит дорога,||Не дрогнет черты.|
|Не дрожат листы||Птицы спят в молчании бора|
|Подожди немного||Подожди только: скоро|
|Отдохнешь и ты.||Уснешь и ты.|
Comparing these two poems we realize why namely Lermontov`s poem became a masterpiece, notwithstanding V.Briusov keeps to more exact correspondence of lexical units and prosody.
In Russia literal translation was a real opposition to those who were eager to preserve the inner essence of the original text. For instance, famous and respectable poet A.Fet was the apologist of literalism. He writes, “The translator is happy when he manages, at least partially, to achieve the beauty of form that is inseparable from the original text. The main task of translation is to be literal. No matter it can sound heavy and uneven; the reader with an artistic flair will feel the power of the original text”.
Logic prompts us if even there is a reader with an artistic flair he will not actually need this sort of translation (what about his good taste?). He would rather read the original. Or, perhaps, he would be interested in comparing two texts out of curiosity? Then what is the main function of Literary Translation – to satisfy the inquisitive reader? ...