1.Explainthedefinitionoftranslationandtheconceptof“formalcorrespondence”intheviewofCatford.⑴Translationmaybedefinedasfollows:thereplacementoftextualmaterialinonelanguage(SL)byequivalenttextualmaterialinanotherlanguage(TL).Theuseoftheterm“textualmaterial”underlinesthefactthatinnormalconditionsitisnottheentiretyofaSLtextwhichistranslated,thatis,replacedbyTLequivalents.Butatoneormorelevelsoflanguagetheremaybesimplereplacement,bynon-equivalentTLmaterial.Moreover,atoneormorelevelstheremaybenoreplacementatall,butsimpletransferenceofSLmaterialintotheTLtext.Theterm“equivalent”isclearlyakeyterm.ThecentralproblemoftranslationpracticeisthatoffindingTLtranslationequivalents.Acentraltaskoftranslationtheoryisthatofdefiningthenatureandconditionsoftranslationequivalents.⑵AformalcorrespondentisanyTLcategory(unit,class,structure,etc.)whichmaybesaidtooccupy,asnearlyaspossible,the“same”placeintheeconomyoftheTLasthegivenSLcategoryoccupiesintheSL.Formalcorrespondencecanbeonlyapproximate,andcanonlybeestablishedultimatelyonthebasisoftextualequivalenceatsomepoint.3.What’syourunderstandingof“thenatureoftranslation”inthelightofNida?AccordingtoNida,thenatureoftranslatingis:Translatingconsistsinreproducinginthereceptorlanguagetheclosestnaturalequivalentofthesource-languagemessage,firstintermsofmeaningandsecondlyintermsofstyle.ExplanationoftheNatureoftheTranslation(pp12-14)1.Translatingmustaimprimarilyat“reproducingthemessage”.Todoanythingelseisessentiallyfalsetoone’staskasatranslator.(aim)2.Thetranslatormuststriveforequivalenceratherthanidentity.Inasensethisisjustanotherwayofemphasizingthereproductionofthemessageratherthantheconservationoftheformoftheutterance.(equivalence)3.Thebesttranslationdoesnotsoundlikeatranslation.Itshouldstudiouslyavoid“translationese”—formalfidelity,withresultingunfaithfulnesstothecontentandtheimpactofthemessage.(natural)4.Aconscientioustranslatorwillwanttheclosestnaturalequivalentbecauseoftheculturaldifferences.5.Meaningmustbegivenpriority,foritisthecontentofthemessagewhichisofprimeimportancefortranslating,andtodoanythingelseisessentiallyfalsetoone’staskasatranslator.6.Styleissaidsecondarytocontent,butitisstillimportant.Oneshouldnottranslatepoetryasthoughitwereprose,norexpositorymaterialasthoughitwerestraightnarrative.5.Explain“semantictranslation”and“communicativetranslation”proposedbyNewmark.①Semantictranslationattemptstorender,ascloselyasthesemanticandsyntacticstructuresofthesecondlanguageallow,theexactcontextualmeaningoftheoriginal.Communicativetranslationattemptstoproduceonitsreadersaneffectascloseaspossibletothatobtainedonthereadersoftheoriginal.②Generally,asemantictranslationtendstobemorecomplex,moreawkward,moredetailed,moreconcentrated,andpursuesthethought-processesratherthantheintentionofthetransmitter.Ittendstoovertranslate,tobemorespecificthantheoriginal,toincludemoremeaningsinitssearchforonenuanceofmeaning.Acommunicativetranslationislikelytobesmoother,simpler,clearer,moredirect,moreconventional,conformingtoaparticularregisteroflanguage,tendingtoundertranslate,i.e.tousemoregeneric,hold-alltermsindifficultpassages.③Asemantictranslationisoutoftimeandlocalspace,whereacommunicativetranslationisephemeralandrootedinitscontext.Asemantictranslationattemptstopreserveitsauthor’sidiolect,hispeculiarformofexpression.Itrelatesto“expressive”functionoflanguage,wherecommunicativetranslationrespondstothevocativefunctionoflanguage.④Onebasicdifferencebetweenthetwomethodsisthatwherethereisaconflict,thecommunicativemustemphasizethe“force”ratherthanthecontentofthemessage,e.g.:Bewareofthedog!1)當心狗！2）“狗咬人”或“狗很兇”Keepoffthegrass！1）勿踏草坪！2）不要在草坪上行走。Wetpaint！1）“當心油漆！”或“油漆未干！”2）油漆剛剛噴上。⑤However,incommunicativeasinsemantictranslation,providedthatequivalent-effectissecured,theliteralword-for-wordtranslationisnotonlythebest,itisonlyvalidmethodoftranslation.4.“Formalequivalence”,“dynamicequivalence”,and“functionalequivalence”arethekeyconceptsinNida’stheoriesoftranslation.Howdoyouunderstandthem?①Formalequivalence:aformal-equivalencetranslationisbasicallysource-oriented;thatis,itisdesignedtorevealasmuchaspossibleoftheformandcontentoftheoriginalmessage.Indoingso,anF-Etranslationattemptstoreproduceseveralformalelements,including:1.grammaticalunits,2.consistencyinwordusage,and3.meaningsintermsofthesourcecontext.Thereproductionofgrammaticalunitsmayconsistin:a）translatingnounsbynouns,verbsbyverbs,etc.;b）keepingallphrasesandsentencesintact(i.e.notsplittingupandreadjustingtheunits);andc）preservingallformalindicators,e.g.marksofpunctuation,paragraphbreaks,andpoeticindentation.Inattemptingtoreproducingconsistencyinwordusage,anF-Etranslationusuallyaimsatso-calledconcordanceofterminology;thatis,italwaysrendersaparticularterminthesource-languagedocumentbythecorrespondingterminthereceptordocument.Inordertoreproducemeaningsintermsofthesourcecontext,anF-Etranslationnormallyattemptsnottomakeadjustmentsinidioms,butrathertoreproducesuchexpressionsmoreorlessliterally,sothatthereadermaybeabletoperceivesomethingofthewayinwhichtheoriginaldocumentemployedlocalculturalelementstoconveymeanings.②Dynamicequivalence:incontrast,atranslationwhichattemptstoproduceadynamicratherthanaformalequivalenceisbasedontheprincipleofequivalenteffect.Insuchatranslationthefocusofattentionisdirectedtowardthereceptorresponse.OnewayofdefiningaD-Etranslationistodescribeitas“theclosestnaturalequivalenttothesource-languagemessage.”Thistypeofdefinitioncontainsthreeessentialterms:1)equivalent,whichpointstowardthesource-languagemessage,2)natural,whichpointstowardthereceptorlanguage,and3)closest,whichbindsthetwoorientationstogetheronthebasisofthehighestdegreeofapproximation.However,sinceaD-Etranslationisdirectlyprimarilytowardequivalenceofresponseratherthanequivalenceofform,itisimportanttodefinemorefullytheimplicationsoftheword“natural”asappliedtosuchtranslation.Basically,theword“natural”isapplicabletothreeareasofthecommunicationprocess;foranaturalrenderingmustfit1)thereceptorlanguageandcultureasawhole,2)thecontextoftheparticularmessage,and3)thereceptor-languageaudience.③Functionalequivalence:Basically,dynamicequivalencehasbeendescribedintermsoffunctionalequivalence.Thetranslationprocesshasbeendefinedonthebasisthatthereceptorsofatranslationshouldcomprehendthetranslatedtexttosuchanextentthattheycanunderstandhowtheoriginalreceptorsmusthaveunderstoodtheoriginaltext.Theexpression“dynamicequivalence”has,however,ledtosomeconfusion,sincetheterm“dynamic”hasbeenunderstoodmerelyintermsofsomethingwhichhasimpactandappeal.Accordingly,toavoidmisunderstandingtheexpression“functionalequivalence”isemployed,particularlysincethetwinbasesforeffectivetranslationseemtobebestrepresentedinasociosemioticandsociolinguisticorientation,inwhichthefocusisuponfunction.Thetranslatormustseektoemployafunctionallyequivalentsetofformswhichinsofaraspossiblewaywillmatchthemeaningoftheoriginalsource-languagetext.6.WhoisCicero?WhoisSchleiermacher?WhoisTytler?Whataretheirviewsontranslationrespectively?⑴西塞羅（Cicero106—43B.C.）羅馬演說家，哲學家，修辭學家，作家兼翻譯家。他精通拉丁語和希臘語。他把柏拉圖的《蒂邁歐篇》和荷馬史詩《奧德賽》由希臘語譯成拉丁語，他的著作有《論最優秀的演說家》，《論善與惡的定義》，其中某些章節波及翻譯。他對翻譯的見解：譯者應象演說家那樣，使用符合古羅馬語言習慣來體現內容，以吸引擴大讀者。直譯是缺乏技巧的體現，應當防止逐字死譯，翻譯應當保留詞語最內層的東西——意義。譯者的責任是給讀者稱出原詞的重量而不是數量。翻譯也是文學創作，任何翻譯必須是其人。聲音與意義自然相聯絡，詞與詞義在功能上不可分割，多種語言的修辭手段是相通的。可見，他認為翻譯