【作者】 李冬婷；

【导师】 刘卫东；

【作者基本信息】 广西民族大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 文本类型翻译理论是西方比较有影响的翻译理论,亦为中国译界所关注。凯瑟琳娜.赖斯(Katharina Reiss)和彼得.纽马克(Peter Newmark)是西方对文本类型翻译理论做出杰出贡献的两位翻译理论家。赖斯根据德国心理学家卡尔布勒(Karl Bühler)提出的语言功能三分法把语言功能理论与翻译方法联系起来,对文本进行了划分,提出了基于文本类型的翻译理论。她认为语言主要有信息、表情和呼吁这三种功能,她把文本相应地划分为重内容文本、重形式文本及重感染文本这三种,后来她又增加了视听媒体文本。赖斯指出不同的文本类型应有不同的翻译策略。纽马克也根据布勒的语言功能三分法分析了文本类型与翻译策略的关系。他认为文本有信息、表情、感染、交际、美学和元语言六种功能,其中前三种是主要功能,因此他把文本分为三类:信息型、表情型和感染型文本。纽马克认为不同类型的文本应有不同的翻译方法,因此他提出了八种翻译方法:逐字译、直译、信译、语义翻译、交际翻译、地道翻译、意译、编译,而他认为只有语义翻译和交际翻译才能达到翻译的两大目标:准确、经济。赖斯与纽马克的文本类型翻译理论开拓了翻译理论研究的新途径,对翻译研究做出了巨大的贡献。赖斯与纽马克的文本类型翻译理论不但在语言功能、文本类型的划分及不同类型文本的翻译方法等方面有着许多相似之处,而且也有着不少差异。本论文通过文献查阅法和对比分析法对赖斯和纽马克的文本类型翻译理论进行对比,分析他们理论形成的渊源,阐述他们理论的相似和迥异之处,探讨其对不同类型文本的翻译的指导意义,论证这两种文本类型翻译理论中哪种更合理,以期为建立一种有关文本类型及其翻译的新理论提供理论依据,从而更好地指导翻译研究及翻译实践。本论文通过对比分析赖斯和纽马克的文本类型翻译理论,得出如下结论:纽马克作为语言学和翻译学的研究学者,他的分类比较注重文本本身的功能;而赖斯作为功能翻译理论派的先驱,更注重文本被接受的功能。就语言功能的划分而言,纽马克的分类比赖斯的更全面;就文本类型的分类而言,赖斯的划分并未依据同一标准,纽马克的分类比赖斯的更为合理。就翻译方法而言,赖斯并未探讨在翻译中如何处理不同类型文本中出现的文化因素,而纽马克的翻译方法更多地考虑到了文化的因素。总体而言,纽马克的文本类型翻译理论比赖斯的更为合理、更具指导性。更多还原

【Abstract】 Reiss’s and Newmark’s views on text typology and translation are influential in China and abroad. Katharina Reiss and Peter Newmark are two translation theorists who have made celebrated contributions to the development of text typology. Based on Karl Bühler’s threefold division of language functions, Reiss proposes her text typology by linking language functions to translation strategies and translation methods. She proposes that there are three language functions: the informative, the expressive and the operative functions. Accordingly, Reiss classifies texts into three types: the content-focused texts, the form-focused texts, and the appeal-focused texts. Later she adds another text type, namely, the audio-medial text. According to Reiss, there are different translation methods for the various text types. Similarly, Newmark also analyzes the relationship between text types and translation methods. He points out that language has six functions: the informative, the expressive, the vocative, the phatic, the aesthetic and the metalingual functions, among which the first three functions are regarded as the most important ones while the others are minor ones. Therefore, he categorizes texts into three types: the informative texts, the expressive texts and the vocative texts. Newmark also proposes that the translation method of the various types of texts varies from each other and thus he puts forward eight translation methods, namely, literal translation, faithful translation, semantic translation, communicative translation, idiomatic translation, free translation, word-for-word translation and adaptation. However, he insists that only semantic and communicative translation fulfill the two main aims of translation, which are first, accuracy, and second, economy.The theory of text typology not only has provided translators with a new perspective in translation studies, but also has made great contributions to translation studies. There are similarities as well as differences in terms of Reiss’s and Newmark’s views on text typology and translation. Adopting methods of consulting literature and making comparative analysis,this thesis tries to make a comparative study of their views on text typology and translation in order to analyze the similarities and differences. The strong points and the shortages of their theories will be pointed out so as to provide theoretical basis for establishment of a new theory in terms of text typology and translation, offering better guidance in translation studies and translation practice.This thesis has drawn some conclusions through the comparative study of Reiss’s and Newmark’s views on text typology and translation. First, generally speaking, Newmark, who is dedicated to linguistics and translation studies, pays more attention to the functions of the text itself. However, Reiss, the pioneer of the functionalistic approaches, emphasizes more on the reception of the text. Second, Newmark’s classification of language functions is more comprehensive than that of Reiss. Third, as for text types, Reiss does not follow the same standard to define various kinds of texts, Newmark’s classification is more reasonable than that of Reiss. Fourth, Reiss does not discuss how to deal with the cultural elements that exist in the various kinds of text while Newmark takes consideration of the translation of cultural elements. Generally speaking, Newmark’s views on text typology and translation can provide better guidance for translation studies and translation practices.更多还原