Hist Trans Theo EN 2 - Revision history

Chen Xinyi: /* References */

2021-12-15T14:49:20Z

References

Chen Xinyi: /* 3.2 Criticism of Гарбовский (Garbovsky) */

2021-12-14T14:09:05Z

3.2 Criticism of Гарбовский (Garbovsky)

Chen Xinyi: /* 3.1 Criticism of Сдобников (Sdobnikov) */

2021-12-14T14:07:38Z

3.1 Criticism of Сдобников (Sdobnikov)

Chen Xinyi: /* Overview of Russian Translation Theory Research in The New Century */

2021-12-14T09:08:28Z

Overview of Russian Translation Theory Research in The New Century

Chen Xinyi: /* Criticism of The Major Translation Theorists After The Collapse of The Soviet Union */

2021-12-14T09:07:30Z

Criticism of The Major Translation Theorists After The Collapse of The Soviet Union

Chen Xinyi: /* Inheritance and Development of Russian Translation Theory */

2021-12-14T09:06:17Z

Inheritance and Development of Russian Translation Theory

Chen Xinyi: /* The State of Translation in Russia After The Collapse of The Soviet Union */

2021-12-14T09:05:25Z

The State of Translation in Russia After The Collapse of The Soviet Union

Chen Xinyi at 08:50, 14 December 2021

2021-12-14T08:50:14Z

Chen Xinyi at 08:48, 14 December 2021

2021-12-14T08:48:47Z

Chen Xinyi: /* Reinterpretation of the Equivalence Problem */

2021-12-14T06:08:50Z

Reinterpretation of the Equivalence Problem

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 ==References==
-吴克礼 Wu Keli. 2006.  俄苏翻译理论流派评述 Review of Russian and Soviet Translation Theory Schools [M]. 上海外语教育出版社 Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
+Wu Keli 吴克礼 (2006).  俄苏翻译理论流派评述 Review of Russian and Soviet Translation Theory Schools [M]. 上海外语教育出版社 Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
-杨仕章 Yang Shizhang. 2003. 科米萨罗夫翻译思想管窥A Glimpse into Komissarov's Thought on Translation[J]. 中国俄语教学(3) Teaching Russian in China (3).
+Yang Shizhang 杨仕章 (2003). 科米萨罗夫翻译思想管窥A Glimpse into Komissarov's Thought on Translation[J]. 中国俄语教学(3) Teaching Russian in China (3).
-杨仕章 Yang Shizhang. 2004. 科米萨罗夫的翻译语用学思想Komissarov's idea of translation pragmatics[J]. 中国俄语教学(4))Teaching Russian in China(4).
+Yang Shizhang 杨仕章 (2004). 科米萨罗夫的翻译语用学思想Komissarov's idea of translation pragmatics[J]. 中国俄语教学(4))Teaching Russian in China(4).
-杨仕章 Yang Shizhang. 2005. 俄罗斯语言翻译学研究Translation Studies in Russian Language[J]. 外语与外语教学(5) Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Studie(5).
+Yang Shizhang 杨仕章 (2005). 俄罗斯语言翻译学研究Translation Studies in Russian Language[J]. 外语与外语教学(5) Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Studie(5).
-杨仕章 Yang Shizhang. 2006. 俄罗斯语言翻译研究的八大领域Eight areas of Russian language translation research[J]. 外语研究(5) Foreign Language Studie(5).
+Yang Shizhang 杨仕章 (2006). 俄罗斯语言翻译研究的八大领域Eight areas of Russian language translation research[J]. 外语研究(5) Foreign Language Studie(5).
-Алексеева И.С. Alexeeva I.S. 2008. Текст и перевод вопросы теории Text and translation issues of theory[M]. М.Международные отношения M.International relations.
+Alexeeva I.S. Алексеева И.С. (2008). Текст и перевод вопросы теории Text and translation issues of theory[M]. М.Международные отношения M.International relations.
-Бархударов Л.С. Barkhudarov L.S. 1975. Язык и перевод. Вопросы общей и частной теории перевода Language and translation. Problems of the general and private theory of translation[M]. М.Международные отношения M.International relations.
+Barkhudarov L.S. Бархударов Л.С. (1975). Язык и перевод. Вопросы общей и частной теории перевода Language and translation. Problems of the general and private theory of translation[M]. М.Международные отношения M.International relations.
-Гарбовский Н.К. Garbovsky N.K. 2004. Теория перевода Translation Theory[M]. М.Издательство Московского университета M. Publishing house of Moscow University.
+Garbovsky N.K. Гарбовский Н.К. (2004). Теория перевода Translation Theory[M]. М.Издательство Московского университета M. Publishing house of Moscow University.
-Комиссаров В.Н. Komissarov V.N. 1980. Лингвистика перевода Linguistics of translation[M]. М. Международные M. International.
+Komissarov V.N. Комиссаров В.Н. (1980). Лингвистика перевода Linguistics of translation[M]. М. Международные M. International.
-Комиссаров В.Н. Komissarov V.N. 1999. Современное переводоведение. Курслекций Modern Translation Studies. Coursework[M]. М. ЭТС. M. ETS.
+Komissarov V.N. Комиссаров В.Н. (1999). Современное переводоведение. Курслекций Modern Translation Studies. Coursework[M]. М. ЭТС. M. ETS.
-Швейцер А.Д. Schweitzer A.D. 1988. Теория перевода:статус, проблемы, аспекты Theory of translation:status, problems, aspects[М]. М. :Наука. М. :Science.
+Schweitzer A.D. Швейцер А.Д. (1988). Теория перевода:статус, проблемы, аспекты Theory of translation:status, problems, aspects[М]. М. :Наука. М. :Science.
-Хуйруллин В.И. Huirullin V.I. 2009. Перевод и фреймы Translation and Frames[M]. М. Издательство«Книжный дом ЛИБРОКОМ»M. Publishing house LIBROKOM.
+Huirullin V.I. Хуйруллин В.И. (2009). Перевод и фреймы Translation and Frames[M]. М. Издательство«Книжный дом ЛИБРОКОМ»M. Publishing house LIBROKOM.

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 ===3.2 Criticism of Гарбовский (Garbovsky)===
-In 1953, Fyodorov's book "Outline of Translation Theory" was published, which gave a more systematic and comprehensive discussion of translation theory from the perspective of linguistics. In this book, Fyodorov proposed that the theory of translation should be composed of "general theory of translation" and "sub-theory of translation". This view was later carried on in the works of other translation theorists. Along with the rapid development of scientific knowledge, the study of the general theory of translation has been deepened. Galbovsky's book "Translation Theory" focuses on the study of the general problems of translation, which is a study of the main problems of translation theory, based on the studies of his predecessors and contemporaries on these problems. However, Galbovsky does not simply list the views of others, but analyzes and comments on them, identifying the connections and differences between them. This kind of study helps us to grasp the translation linguistics school's research on the general issues of translation as a whole, and at the same time deepens our knowledge and understanding of these views. Galbovsky's discussion of some major issues in translation theory can be described as exhaustive and detailed. For example, the study of the problem of translation equivalence involves the definition of equivalence, equivalence in mathematics and logic, equivalence and meaning, signified and congruent reference, objectivity and subjectivity in translation, equivalence and adequacy, fidelity and exactness, multilevel theory of equivalence, formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence theory, translation equivalence as a normative category, adequacy, equivalence and translation evaluation, regular correspondence of equivalence, etc.
+In 1953, Fyodorov's book "Outline of Translation Theory" was published, which gave a more systematic and comprehensive discussion of translation theory from the perspective of linguistics. In this book, Fyodorov proposed that the theory of translation should be composed of "general theory of translation" and "sub-theory of translation". This view was later carried on in the works of other translation theorists. Along with the rapid development of scientific knowledge, the study of the general theory of translation has been deepened. Galbovsky's book "Translation Theory" focuses on the study of the general problems of translation, which is a study of the main problems of translation theory, based on the studies of his predecessors and contemporaries on these problems. However, Galbovsky does not simply list the views of others, but analyzes and comments on them, identifying the connections and differences between them. This kind of study helps us to grasp the translation linguistics school's research on the general issues of translation as a whole, and at the same time deepens our knowledge and understanding of these views. Galbovsky's discussion of some major issues in translation theory can be described as exhaustive and detailed. For example, the study of the problem of translation equivalence involves the definition of equivalence, equivalence in mathematics and logic, equivalence and meaning, signified and congruent reference, objectivity and subjectivity in translation, equivalence and adequacy, fidelity and exactness, multilevel theory of equivalence, formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence theory, translation equivalence as a normative category, adequacy, equivalence and translation evaluation, regular correspondence of equivalence, etc.(Wu 2006:648)
 ==4.Overview of Russian Translation Theory Research in The New Century==

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 It can be concluded from the book that the two authors hold a functional communicative view of translation, such as they regard the text as a unit of translation and the function of the text as a translation invariant.
-Since the book is a textbook for translation majors in Russian universities, the whole book is mainly an introduction and evaluation of views, and the authors themselves do not have many theoretical views and no significant breakthrough insights, which is also the shortcoming of the book. However, the flaws do not cover up the defects, and the book expresses their own views on the various schools of thought presented (e.g., the authors distinguish between the two concepts of translation studies and translation theory, and also they disagree with Komissarov's classification of detective novels as a type of information translation, etc.), which makes a certain contribution to the development of translation theory research and indicates that translation theory, practice and teaching in translation departments in foreign provinces are in the process of accumulation, and breakthrough results may appear.
+Since the book is a textbook for translation majors in Russian universities, the whole book is mainly an introduction and evaluation of views, and the authors themselves do not have many theoretical views and no significant breakthrough insights, which is also the shortcoming of the book. However, the flaws do not cover up the defects, and the book expresses their own views on the various schools of thought presented (e.g., the authors distinguish between the two concepts of translation studies and translation theory, and also they disagree with Komissarov's classification of detective novels as a type of information translation, etc.), which makes a certain contribution to the development of translation theory research and indicates that translation theory, practice and teaching in translation departments in foreign provinces are in the process of accumulation, and breakthrough results may appear.(Wu 2006:617)
 ===3.2 Criticism of Гарбовский (Garbovsky)===

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 In 1953, Fyodorov's book "Outline of Translation Theory" was published, which gave a more systematic and comprehensive discussion of translation theory from the perspective of linguistics. In this book, Fyodorov proposed that the theory of translation should be composed of "general theory of translation" and "sub-theory of translation". This view was later carried on in the works of other translation theorists. Along with the rapid development of scientific knowledge, the study of the general theory of translation has been deepened. Galbovsky's book "Translation Theory" focuses on the study of the general problems of translation, which is a study of the main problems of translation theory, based on the studies of his predecessors and contemporaries on these problems. However, Galbovsky does not simply list the views of others, but analyzes and comments on them, identifying the connections and differences between them. This kind of study helps us to grasp the translation linguistics school's research on the general issues of translation as a whole, and at the same time deepens our knowledge and understanding of these views. Galbovsky's discussion of some major issues in translation theory can be described as exhaustive and detailed. For example, the study of the problem of translation equivalence involves the definition of equivalence, equivalence in mathematics and logic, equivalence and meaning, signified and congruent reference, objectivity and subjectivity in translation, equivalence and adequacy, fidelity and exactness, multilevel theory of equivalence, formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence theory, translation equivalence as a normative category, adequacy, equivalence and translation evaluation, regular correspondence of equivalence, etc.
-==Overview of Russian Translation Theory Research in The New Century==
+==4.Overview of Russian Translation Theory Research in The New Century==
-===New Perspectives in Russian translation theory research===
+===4.1New Perspectives in Russian translation theory research===
 After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian translation theory has not only focused on traditional translation problems, but has also continued to launch new perspectives in translation studies.
@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 Although chapter translation perspective and frame translation research have been mentioned by previous authors, the macroscopic grasp and comprehensive study of these two research paths by the two authors mentioned above should be of great value to the development of Russian translation theory. In addition, translators have also put forward their translation claims from new perspectives such as lexicography and ethics, and all these studies have pushed Russian translation theory to new heights. (И.С.Алексеева 2008:43)
-===The Main Trends of Russian Translation Theory Research===
+===4.2 The Main Trends of Russian Translation Theory Research===
 Since entering the 21st century, Russian translation theory has further explored traditional translation issues in depth on the one hand, and explored new perspectives and fields of translation research on the other. Although the achievements of Russian translation theory in the new century are not yet comparable to those of the last century, the development of only thirty years has already enabled Russian translation theory to present its own development direction and trends. Looking at the results of the last thirty years, the Russian translation theory in the 21st century mainly presents the following trends:

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian translation theory continued to pay attention to the problem of translation shift, and a representative viewpoint belongs to the discussion of shift by Г.Р.Гарбовский. Г.Р.Гарбовский puts forward the discourse shift (прагматические преобразовния) and discourse-determined shift (прагмат ически обусловленные преобразования). Гарбовский considers discourse conversion and discourse-determined conversion as different concepts. Pragmatic transformation means that the translator consciously changes the communicative effect and aesthetic function sought by the author of the original text. For example, translating poetry into prose and prose into poetry. When the translator believes that it is more important for the reader to understand the content of the original text as exhaustively as possible rather than the form, he often chooses a pragmatic conversion. And the pragmatically determined conversion is aimed at reproducing the communicative effect of the original text in the translated text in equivalent value. Therefore, the translated text often retains the pragmatic meaning of the original, while the syntactic and semantic meaning of the original may be partially or even completely changed. Thus, it can be seen that a pragmatic shift often changes the text as a whole, while a pragmatically determined shift changes only the components of the text. However, whether it is a pragmatic shift or a pragma-determined shift, it is a matter of the translator trying to realize the interpretation of the meaning of one conforming system in another conforming system.(Yang 2005:4)
-==Criticism of The Major Translation Theorists After The Collapse of The Soviet Union==
+==3.Criticism of The Major Translation Theorists After The Collapse of The Soviet Union==
-===Criticism of Сдобников (Sdobnikov)===
+===3.1 Criticism of Сдобников (Sdobnikov)===
 Stobnikov and Petrova's Theory of Translation is a relatively comprehensive textbook on translation and can also be considered a theoretical work. It covers numerous aspects of the history of translation, general theory of translation and monographs on translation. At present, translation studies have developed to a certain level, and there are more materials and predecessors' theories to draw on, summarize and apply, so these two authors are able to examine translation issues from a new height and breadth. The book provides a comprehensive and detailed introduction to the development of Russian translation theory in recent decades, and lists the views of various schools of thought and makes a more incisive analysis and evaluation in the elaboration of some theoretical issues. It can be said that the author has a deep understanding of the development of translation theory as a whole. At the same time, the analysis of various schools of thought is very objective, pointing out the progress of a certain view compared with the previous ones, but also pointing out the shortcomings openly and honestly, and being comprehensive as a textbook. In addition, the views of some famous translation theorists from other countries (such as Nida) are also introduced according to the needs of the text, and even the research results of Chinese scholar Shen Dan are quoted. The book devotes a large amount of space to discussing translation monographs, summarizing and concluding the research on interpretation and literary translation, which is uncommon for translation linguistics works. The two authors have their own unique insights on some theoretical issues, such as the discussion of the concepts of equivalence and equivalence, and they have achieved the inclusion of the views of linguistic and literary schools.
@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 Since the book is a textbook for translation majors in Russian universities, the whole book is mainly an introduction and evaluation of views, and the authors themselves do not have many theoretical views and no significant breakthrough insights, which is also the shortcoming of the book. However, the flaws do not cover up the defects, and the book expresses their own views on the various schools of thought presented (e.g., the authors distinguish between the two concepts of translation studies and translation theory, and also they disagree with Komissarov's classification of detective novels as a type of information translation, etc.), which makes a certain contribution to the development of translation theory research and indicates that translation theory, practice and teaching in translation departments in foreign provinces are in the process of accumulation, and breakthrough results may appear.
 ===Criticism of Гарбовский (Garbovsky)===
 In 1953, Fyodorov's book "Outline of Translation Theory" was published, which gave a more systematic and comprehensive discussion of translation theory from the perspective of linguistics. In this book, Fyodorov proposed that the theory of translation should be composed of "general theory of translation" and "sub-theory of translation". This view was later carried on in the works of other translation theorists. Along with the rapid development of scientific knowledge, the study of the general theory of translation has been deepened. Galbovsky's book "Translation Theory" focuses on the study of the general problems of translation, which is a study of the main problems of translation theory, based on the studies of his predecessors and contemporaries on these problems. However, Galbovsky does not simply list the views of others, but analyzes and comments on them, identifying the connections and differences between them. This kind of study helps us to grasp the translation linguistics school's research on the general issues of translation as a whole, and at the same time deepens our knowledge and understanding of these views. Galbovsky's discussion of some major issues in translation theory can be described as exhaustive and detailed. For example, the study of the problem of translation equivalence involves the definition of equivalence, equivalence in mathematics and logic, equivalence and meaning, signified and congruent reference, objectivity and subjectivity in translation, equivalence and adequacy, fidelity and exactness, multilevel theory of equivalence, formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence theory, translation equivalence as a normative category, adequacy, equivalence and translation evaluation, regular correspondence of equivalence, etc.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 After Fyodorov, Komissarov is active in the Russian translation scene. He accomplished a historic task by introducing the concept of "modern translation studies" and advocating an interdisciplinary approach to translation studies, thus pushing Russian translation studies to a new stage.
-==Inheritance and Development of Russian Translation Theory==
+==2.Inheritance and Development of Russian Translation Theory==
 Compared with the glory of Soviet translation theory in the 20th century, Russian translation theory, in terms of research fields, on the one hand, inherits the original research traditions and provides new interpretations of traditional issues; on the other hand, it explores issues that were not covered by the predecessors, or were rarely covered. Many traditional problems of translation theory have been newly interpreted after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such as the problem of equivalence and the problem of translation shifts.
-===Reinterpretation of the Equivalence Problem===
+===2.1 Reinterpretation of the Equivalence Problem===
 The problem of equivalence received a lot of attention for along time in the Russian-Soviet translation theory. "In 1950, the first creator of translation linguistics, Letsker, published a paper "On regular correspondence in translation". The paper distinguished the following kinds of correspondences: equivalents (эквиваленты), analogues (аналоги), which were changed to (вариантные соответствия) and reciprocal alternatives (адекватные замены) in the author's later discourse." (Yang Shizhang, 2001) After Рецкер, the idea of equivalence was established in the studies of translators such as А.В.Фёдоров, З.Д.Львовская, etc. In the 1980s, as the concept of equivalence in translation was proposed and established by В.Н.Комиссаров and А.Д.Швейцер, the idea of equivalence in Russian translation theory also gradually matured.
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 З.Д. Львовская discusses equivalence from the point of view of communication theory. She argues that "any bilingual activity that does not take equivalence as the purpose of communication is not translation and cannot be explained scientifically in a particular theory, because the type of behavior always changes with its purpose." Львовская discusses textuality and its relation to translation equivalence based on a cross-cultural perspective and analyzes the similarities and differences between equivalence and adequacy. She suggests that both equivalence and adequacy are concepts with an evaluative and relative character. The difference between the two is that equivalence evaluates the bilingual communicative process of translation not only in terms of the fidelity of the source language text but also in terms of the accuracy of the language use of the imported language text and derives an overall result; whereas adequacy evaluates only the correspondence of the translated text in the new communicative scene, i.e., the cultural context of the target language. (З.Д. Львовская 2007:75)
-===Reinterpretation of Translation Shifts Problem ===
+===2.2 Reinterpretation of Translation Shifts Problem ===
 Like the problem of equivalence, the problem of translation shift was also one of the main concerns of Russian-Soviet translation theory in the last century. In the Russian-Soviet translation theory, Я.I.Рецкер (1950) has discussed the problem of translation shift in more details. He divided translation shift into lexical shift and grammatical shift, while lexical shift can be divided into seven forms; grammatical shift is also associated with lexical shift, and grammatical shift refers to changing the structure of sentences in translation according to the norms of the target language. After that, А.Д.Швейцер (1988) discussed translation shift from the level of sense-value equivalence. Л.С.Бархударов (1975) classified the shift in the translation process.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 It is obvious from the history of Soviet translation theory that, like other countries, Soviet translation theory has also gone through a process from scratch, from fragmentary views to systematic theoretical discussions. From a global perspective, Russian translation theory is one of the important branches of translation theory in the world. Russian translation studies began in the Kievan Rus' era, and from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries until the beginning of the twentieth century, Russian translation studies developed along their own trajectory. Prior to the 1950s, literary translation theory had dominated Soviet translation theory, and from the 1950s onward, the linguistic school of translation began to rise and engage in a lively academic debate with the literary school, which subsided in the 1980s, with the linguistic school of translation thought gradually taking the lead. The process of translation was briefly suspended by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, but soon thereafter, the translation business was relaunched and translation theory developed significantly. This paper provides a brief introduction to the history of translation theory in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, based on the translation ideas of two famous Russian translation theorists, V.V.Stobnikov and G.Р.Garbovsky, as well as a number of translation theory monographs that have been published in Russia in the past thirty years.
-==The State of Translation in Russia After The Collapse of The Soviet Union==
+==1.The State of Translation in Russia After The Collapse of The Soviet Union==
 In 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved and the the Russian Federation was born. This major regime change briefly halted the process of translation. Shortly thereafter, the translation business was relaunched and developed rapidly, although there were significant changes in the practice of translation.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:48, 14 December 2021
Line 59:		Line 59:

	After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian translation theory continued to pay attention to the problem of translation shift, and a representative viewpoint belongs to the discussion of shift by Г.Р.Гарбовский. Г.Р.Гарбовский puts forward the discourse shift (прагматические преобразовния) and discourse-determined shift (прагмат ически обусловленные преобразования). Гарбовский considers discourse conversion and discourse-determined conversion as different concepts. Pragmatic transformation means that the translator consciously changes the communicative effect and aesthetic function sought by the author of the original text. For example, translating poetry into prose and prose into poetry. When the translator believes that it is more important for the reader to understand the content of the original text as exhaustively as possible rather than the form, he often chooses a pragmatic conversion. And the pragmatically determined conversion is aimed at reproducing the communicative effect of the original text in the translated text in equivalent value. Therefore, the translated text often retains the pragmatic meaning of the original, while the syntactic and semantic meaning of the original may be partially or even completely changed. Thus, it can be seen that a pragmatic shift often changes the text as a whole, while a pragmatically determined shift changes only the components of the text. However, whether it is a pragmatic shift or a pragma-determined shift, it is a matter of the translator trying to realize the interpretation of the meaning of one conforming system in another conforming system.(Yang 2005:4)		After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian translation theory continued to pay attention to the problem of translation shift, and a representative viewpoint belongs to the discussion of shift by Г.Р.Гарбовский. Г.Р.Гарбовский puts forward the discourse shift (прагматические преобразовния) and discourse-determined shift (прагмат ически обусловленные преобразования). Гарбовский considers discourse conversion and discourse-determined conversion as different concepts. Pragmatic transformation means that the translator consciously changes the communicative effect and aesthetic function sought by the author of the original text. For example, translating poetry into prose and prose into poetry. When the translator believes that it is more important for the reader to understand the content of the original text as exhaustively as possible rather than the form, he often chooses a pragmatic conversion. And the pragmatically determined conversion is aimed at reproducing the communicative effect of the original text in the translated text in equivalent value. Therefore, the translated text often retains the pragmatic meaning of the original, while the syntactic and semantic meaning of the original may be partially or even completely changed. Thus, it can be seen that a pragmatic shift often changes the text as a whole, while a pragmatically determined shift changes only the components of the text. However, whether it is a pragmatic shift or a pragma-determined shift, it is a matter of the translator trying to realize the interpretation of the meaning of one conforming system in another conforming system.(Yang 2005:4)
		+
		+	==Criticism of The Major Translation Theorists After The Collapse of The Soviet Union
		+	===Criticism of Сдобников (Sdobnikov)===
		+	Stobnikov and Petrova's Theory of Translation is a relatively comprehensive textbook on translation and can also be considered a theoretical work. It covers numerous aspects of the history of translation, general theory of translation and monographs on translation. At present, translation studies have developed to a certain level, and there are more materials and predecessors' theories to draw on, summarize and apply, so these two authors are able to examine translation issues from a new height and breadth. The book provides a comprehensive and detailed introduction to the development of Russian translation theory in recent decades, and lists the views of various schools of thought and makes a more incisive analysis and evaluation in the elaboration of some theoretical issues. It can be said that the author has a deep understanding of the development of translation theory as a whole. At the same time, the analysis of various schools of thought is very objective, pointing out the progress of a certain view compared with the previous ones, but also pointing out the shortcomings openly and honestly, and being comprehensive as a textbook. In addition, the views of some famous translation theorists from other countries (such as Nida) are also introduced according to the needs of the text, and even the research results of Chinese scholar Shen Dan are quoted. The book devotes a large amount of space to discussing translation monographs, summarizing and concluding the research on interpretation and literary translation, which is uncommon for translation linguistics works. The two authors have their own unique insights on some theoretical issues, such as the discussion of the concepts of equivalence and equivalence, and they have achieved the inclusion of the views of linguistic and literary schools.
		+
		+	It can be concluded from the book that the two authors hold a functional communicative view of translation, such as they regard the text as a unit of translation and the function of the text as a translation invariant.
		+
		+	Since the book is a textbook for translation majors in Russian universities, the whole book is mainly an introduction and evaluation of views, and the authors themselves do not have many theoretical views and no significant breakthrough insights, which is also the shortcoming of the book. However, the flaws do not cover up the defects, and the book expresses their own views on the various schools of thought presented (e.g., the authors distinguish between the two concepts of translation studies and translation theory, and also they disagree with Komissarov's classification of detective novels as a type of information translation, etc.), which makes a certain contribution to the development of translation theory research and indicates that translation theory, practice and teaching in translation departments in foreign provinces are in the process of accumulation, and breakthrough results may appear.
		+	===Criticism of Гарбовский (Garbovsky)===
		+	In 1953, Fyodorov's book "Outline of Translation Theory" was published, which gave a more systematic and comprehensive discussion of translation theory from the perspective of linguistics. In this book, Fyodorov proposed that the theory of translation should be composed of "general theory of translation" and "sub-theory of translation". This view was later carried on in the works of other translation theorists. Along with the rapid development of scientific knowledge, the study of the general theory of translation has been deepened. Galbovsky's book "Translation Theory" focuses on the study of the general problems of translation, which is a study of the main problems of translation theory, based on the studies of his predecessors and contemporaries on these problems. However, Galbovsky does not simply list the views of others, but analyzes and comments on them, identifying the connections and differences between them. This kind of study helps us to grasp the translation linguistics school's research on the general issues of translation as a whole, and at the same time deepens our knowledge and understanding of these views. Galbovsky's discussion of some major issues in translation theory can be described as exhaustive and detailed. For example, the study of the problem of translation equivalence involves the definition of equivalence, equivalence in mathematics and logic, equivalence and meaning, signified and congruent reference, objectivity and subjectivity in translation, equivalence and adequacy, fidelity and exactness, multilevel theory of equivalence, formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence theory, translation equivalence as a normative category, adequacy, equivalence and translation evaluation, regular correspondence of equivalence, etc.

	==Overview of Russian Translation Theory Research in The New Century==		==Overview of Russian Translation Theory Research in The New Century==

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:08, 14 December 2021
Line 48:		Line 48:

	According to the relationship between the signified and congruent reference of philosophical semantics, the referent indicates the object class of real behavior, which is determined according to the понятие, that is, according to the content; while the congruent reference refers to the concrete thing, which necessarily adds the individual understanding, so it is determined according to the референт. What the congruent reference is converted into through translation may depend more on the perception of the translator, or even the perception of the reader of the target language. Thus Гарбовский suggests that the real meaning of the source language text and the real meaning of the translated text do not coincide exactly. After the author constructs a specific speech system, the translator who cannot understand this speech system well, has to reach the signified(денотат) from the concept (понятие), and then he will choose some from a lot of possible objects for categorical description and treat them as congruent reference. In this way, the mechanism of semantic transformation in translation is constructed from individual, specific to general, and then to new individual.(Yang 2004:3)		According to the relationship between the signified and congruent reference of philosophical semantics, the referent indicates the object class of real behavior, which is determined according to the понятие, that is, according to the content; while the congruent reference refers to the concrete thing, which necessarily adds the individual understanding, so it is determined according to the референт. What the congruent reference is converted into through translation may depend more on the perception of the translator, or even the perception of the reader of the target language. Thus Гарбовский suggests that the real meaning of the source language text and the real meaning of the translated text do not coincide exactly. After the author constructs a specific speech system, the translator who cannot understand this speech system well, has to reach the signified(денотат) from the concept (понятие), and then he will choose some from a lot of possible objects for categorical description and treat them as congruent reference. In this way, the mechanism of semantic transformation in translation is constructed from individual, specific to general, and then to new individual.(Yang 2004:3)
		+
		+	Another translation theorist В.В. Сдобников also has his own understanding of equivalence, which he prepared in cooperation with О.В. Петрова. The Theory of Translation ("Теория перевода") was published in 2001. From the point of view of the general theory of communication he distinguishes the criteria of evaluation of translation quality as equivalence (эквивалентность) and adequacy (адекватность).Сдобкников believes that these are two different concepts. Adequacy is the first level of evaluating the quality of translation, it is only suitable for evaluating the overall text of the translation, so adequacy does not have the problem of levels, the relationship between the translation of a work and the original text is either equivalent or not. Unlike equivalence, which depends not only on the translator's analysis and understanding of the extra-linguistic factors of the generated utterance. Сдобников's distinction between equivalence and adequacy is to a certain extent inherited from Смирнов's idea. The discussion of the level of equivalence should be said to be Сдобников's contribution to this important concept of linguistic translation. According to him, there are four kinds of equivalence according to the degree of correspondence between the translated text and the original text: the translation is equivalent to the original text as a whole, and the equivalence is realized at all levels of the text; the translation is equivalent to the original text as a whole, but the translated text is not equivalent to the original text only at individual levels; the translated text is equivalent in some aspects, but not equivalent to the original text as a whole; the translation may be neither equivalent nor equivalent to the original text.
		+
		+	In addition to the two aforementioned translation theorists, in the 21st century, the authors of the traditional problem of equivalence can be found in a number of academic monographs. For example, В.Н.Крупнов discusses the relationship between equivalence and lexical application from the point of view of translation practice. According to him, the translator's task is to select the equivalent specific linguistic units from a wide range of dictionary meanings for the translation of the original text based on the analysis of the text and full consideration of the hyperlinguistic information.
		+
		+	З.Д. Львовская discusses equivalence from the point of view of communication theory. She argues that "any bilingual activity that does not take equivalence as the purpose of communication is not translation and cannot be explained scientifically in a particular theory, because the type of behavior always changes with its purpose." Львовская discusses textuality and its relation to translation equivalence based on a cross-cultural perspective and analyzes the similarities and differences between equivalence and adequacy. She suggests that both equivalence and adequacy are concepts with an evaluative and relative character. The difference between the two is that equivalence evaluates the bilingual communicative process of translation not only in terms of the fidelity of the source language text but also in terms of the accuracy of the language use of the imported language text and derives an overall result; whereas adequacy evaluates only the correspondence of the translated text in the new communicative scene, i.e., the cultural context of the target language. (З.Д. Львовская 2007:75)

	===Reinterpretation of Translation Shifts Problem ===		===Reinterpretation of Translation Shifts Problem ===