当代西方翻译理论选读

Unit One Linsuistic Approaches to Translation
Chapter 1Eugene Nida
Dynamic Equivalence and Formal Equivalence
Chapter 2Peter Newmark
Semantic and Communicative Translation
Chapter 3Albrecht Neubert
Translation as Text

Unit Two Functionalist Approaches to Translation
Chapter 4Hans J. Vermeer
Skopos Theory
Chapter 5Christiane Nord
Functionality Plus Loyalty

Unit Three Descriptive Approaches to Translation
Chapter 6Itamar Even-Zohar
Polysystem Theory
Chapter 7Gideon Toury
Descriptive Translation Studies
Chapter 8Andre Lefevere
Translation as Rewriting

Unit Four Cultural Studies Approaches to Translation
Chapter 9Lawrence Venuti
Foreignizing Translation Strategy
Chapter 10 Luise yon Flotow
A Feminist Perspective
Chapter 11 Douglas Robinson
Postcolonial Approach to Translation

Unit Five Philosophical Approaches to Translation.
Chapter 12 George Steiner
Hermeneutic Approach to Translation
Chapter 13 Jacques Derrida
Deconstructionist Translation Theory

Unit Six Cognitive Approaches to Translation
Chapter 14 Ernst-August Gutt
Cognitive Approach to Translation

Unit Seven Empirical Research in Translation Studies
Chapter 15 Wolfgang LOrscher
Think-aloud as a Method
Chapter 16 Mona Baker
Corpus-based Translation Studies
Bibliography

Identifying the research parameters which motivate the differentmodels of translation is a first step toward clarification. Two divergentviews of translation may not really be in opposition. They may simply focuson different aspects of a larger phenomenon. Still, the broader discipline oftranslation studies needs a conceptual baseline. We argue that the textualapproach to translation can serve as that baseline.
Without an integrating concept we run the risk that translationwill be understood only in parts, and never as a whole. If there are nointegrating concepts, there can be no hope of an integrated or unifiedtheory of translation. An integrated theory would bring the various modelsof translation and the various kinds of translation together in a moreencompassing theoretical structure.
Building models without a common set of concepts has led to thefracturing of translation studies noted recently by Newmark and earlierby Savory. In a recent paper, Newmark has maintained that "an integratedtheory of translation is not feasible" （Newmark 1990:711）. Newmarkcontinues to say that "all theories have their uses; when they are claimed tobe exclusive or monopolistic, they become pernicious dogma." Newmarkis fight about dogma. It has no place in translation studies and cannot existin any empirically based discipline. He goes too far when he claims that anintegrated theory of translation is not possible. Each approach to translationcan validate itself. It can achieve validity by carefully selecting its researchaims and using a rigorous method-critical system in the descriptionof the phenomenon within that selection. The scope, and therefore theexplanatory power, of the model of translation is restricted to the elementssubjected to analysis. It is not necessarily the case that an integratedtheory is impossible. Simply because some approaches to translation havedecided to focus on a restricted set of elements does not mean that a morecomprehensive and meaningful set of features cannot be constructed. Thiscould be done by merging the common conceptual elements of the variousmodels and accounting for the areas of difference.
An integrated approach requires an integrating concept. We haveproposed the text as an integrating concept. In translation we are concernedwith three incarnations of the text. There is the source text and there is thetarget text. The third text is what we call the virtual translation.