英语论文网

sp;theme  of  structural  linguistic approach  to  literary  translation,  is  open  to  debate  concerning  the  definition  and classification  (See Morris 1938; N ida 1964; Leech 1974;  Lotfipour-Saedi 1990). The significance of argument over  meaning  lies  in the belief  that a  good  understanding of meaning  is  an  essential  prerequisite  for  successful  translation.  Equivalence,  with respect to its definition, nature and applicability, is another controversial topic that are sufficiently  dealt  upon. The structural linguistic approach to literary translation, an attempt of systematic analysis  of  translations  features  the  works  of  Jakobson  (1959),  N ida  (1964,  1969, 1986)  and  Newmark  (1981,  1988).  Jakobson  (ibid),  the  first  to  use  the  notion  of “equivalence”  in  translation,  proposes  the  notion  of  “equivalence  in  difference”, denying  the existence of equivalence between  “code- units” while acknowledging  that procedures such as loanwords and semantic shifts can be employed to make up for the deficiency.  N ida  (ibid),  drawing  on  concepts  from  semantics,  pragmatics  and Chomsky’s  generative-transformational  grammar,  puts  forward  two  types  of equivalence:  formal equivalence and  functional equivalence. The  former, which  later is referred to as  formal correspondence (N ida & Taber 1969:22-8),  “focuses attention on  the  message  itself,  in both  form and  content”,  while  the  latter  is based  upon  “the principle  of  equivalent  effect”  (1964:159).  To  N ida,  “the  success  of  translation depends  above  all  on  achieving  equivalent  response”  (Munday  2001:  42).  Newmark (ibid)  defines  semantic  translation  as  “attempts  to  render,  as  closely  as  the  semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the  original”,  and  terms  communicative  translation  as  “attempts  to  produce  on  its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original”. It is  noteworthy that Newmark (ibid) proposes the  use of Componential  Analysis (CA) in translation, claiming that a translator  normally  “carries out a CA only on a word of some significance  in the  TL  text  which can  not adequately be  translated one to one,” and “if  the  word is  not  important,  he will  normally  make do with  a TL  synonym.” 
..........

2.2 A general review of multimodality 
The  term  “multimodality”  can  be  traced  back  to  the  fourth  century  BC  when classical  rhetoricians &本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。