University of Macau / Faculty of Arts and Humanities. / Department of Portuguese

by Vivien Fong. / Thesis (M.A.Ed.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1988. / Bibliography: leaves 270-281.

No description available.

趙欣. / "2009年10月". / "2009 nian 10 yue". / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2010. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 186-193). / Abstracts and table of contents in Chinese and English. / Zhao Xin. / 中文摘要 --- p.i / 英文摘要 --- p.ii / 前言 --- p.iv / 目錄 --- p.v / Chapter 第一章 --- 導論 --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1 --- 硏宄目的 --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2 --- 語料選取 --- p.2 / Chapter 1.2.1 --- 原文簡介 --- p.3 / Chapter 1.2.2 --- 譯文簡介 --- p.5 / Chapter 1.3 --- 研宄方法 --- p.8 / Chapter 1.4 --- 翻譯中的重譯現象 --- p.10 / Chapter 1.4.1 --- “重譯´ح的概念 --- p.10 / Chapter 1.4.2 --- 已有的重譯現象 --- p.19 / Chapter 1.5 --- 小結 --- p.27 / Chapter 第二章 --- 分析框架 --- p.29 / Chapter 2.1 --- 文本處理過程的五個層面 --- p.30 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- 語音層 --- p.31 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- 詞語層 --- p.31 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- 句法層 --- p.32 / Chapter 2.1.4 --- 語義層 --- p.38 / Chapter 2.1.5 --- 概念整合層 --- p.40 / Chapter 2.2 --- 重譯本之間的共性與多元性 --- p.41 / Chapter 2.3 --- 重譯本之間的本土化與外族化傾向 --- p.42 / Chapter 2.4 --- 重譯本的相對質量評估 --- p.45 / Chapter 2.4.1 --- 豪斯（House 1977)的模式 --- p.46 / Chapter 2.4.2 --- 萊斯（Reiss 1971 / 2000)的模式 --- p.50 / Chapter 2.4.3 --- 國内的一些模式 --- p.51 / Chapter 2.4.4 --- 翻譯過程與譯文質量評估 --- p.52 / Chapter 2.5 --- 小結 --- p.55 / Chapter 第三章 --- 雙語語料平行数據集 --- p.57 / Chapter 3.1 --- 基本概念 --- p.57 / Chapter 3.2 --- 文本切分單位 --- p.61 / Chapter 3.3 --- 建立方法 --- p.65 / Chapter 3.4 --- 数據集中文本句的對照關係 --- p.72 / Chapter 3.5 --- 小結 --- p.79 / Chapter 第四章 --- 重譯本翻譯策略的共性與多元性 --- p.81 / Chapter 4.1 --- 朱譯本 --- p.82 / Chapter 4.1.1 --- 語音層 --- p.82 / Chapter 4.1.1.1 --- 人名 --- p.82 / Chapter 4.1.1.2 --- 地名 --- p.84 / Chapter 4.1.2 --- 詞語層 --- p.85 / Chapter 4.1.3 --- 句法層 --- p.86 / Chapter 4.1.4 --- 語義層 --- p.91 / Chapter 4.1.4.1 --- 詞義 --- p.91 / Chapter 4.1.4.2 --- 句義 --- p.93 / Chapter 4.1.4.3 --- 篇章義 --- p.96 / Chapter 4.1.5 --- 概念整合層 --- p.98 / Chapter 4.2 --- 尤譯本 --- p.100 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- 語音層 --- p.101 / Chapter 4.2.1.1 --- 人名 --- p.101 / Chapter 4.2.1.2 --- 地名 --- p.102 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- 詞語層 --- p.104 / Chapter 4.2.2.1 --- 成語 --- p.104 / Chapter 4.2.2.2 --- 方言詞 --- p.105 / Chapter 4.2.3 --- 句法層 --- p.106 / Chapter 4.2.4 --- 語義層 --- p.111 / Chapter 4.2.4.1 --- 詞義 --- p.111 / Chapter 4.2.4.2 --- 句義 --- p.114 / Chapter 4.2.4.3 --- 篇章義 --- p.116 / Chapter 4.2.5 --- 概念整合層 --- p.117 / Chapter 4.3 --- 重譯本翻譯策略的共性與多元性 --- p.120 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- 數據對比 --- p.120 / Chapter 4.3.1.1 --- 語音層 --- p.120 / Chapter 4.3.1.2 --- 詞語層 --- p.122 / Chapter 4.3.1.3 --- 句法層 --- p.123 / Chapter 4.3.1.2 --- 語義層 --- p.125 / Chapter 4.3.1.2 --- 概念整合層 --- p.129 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- 共性體現 --- p.130 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- 多元性體現 --- p.134 / Chapter 4.4 --- 小結 --- p.138 / Chapter 第五章 --- 重譯本的本土化與外族化傾向和質量評估 --- p.142 / Chapter 5.1 --- 重譯本的本土化與外族化傾向 --- p.143 / Chapter 5.1.1 --- 詞語層 --- p.143 / Chapter 5.1.2 --- 句法層 --- p.145 / Chapter 5.1.3 --- 概念整合層 --- p.146 / Chapter 5.2 --- 重譯本的相對質量評估 --- p.150 / Chapter 5.2.1 --- 語音層 --- p.151 / Chapter 5.2.1.1 --- 人名 --- p.151 / Chapter 5.2.1.2 --- 地名 --- p.153 / Chapter 5.2.2 --- 詞語層 --- p.156 / Chapter 5.2.3 --- 句法層 --- p.158 / Chapter 5.2.4 --- 語義層 --- p.158 / Chapter 5.2.5 --- 概念整合層 --- p.162 / Chapter 5.2.6 --- 譯文質量比較結果 --- p.164 / Chapter 5.3 --- 小結 --- p.165 / Chapter 第六章 --- 結論 --- p.167 / Chapter 6.1 --- 重譯本翻譯策略的共性與多元性 --- p.167 / Chapter 6.2 --- 重譯本的本土化與外族化傾向 --- p.170 / Chapter 6.3 --- 重譯本的相對質量評估 --- p.170 / Chapter 6.4 --- 翻譯的認知過程 --- p.172 / Chapter 6.5 --- 小結 --- p.178 / 英文目錄 --- p.181 / 參考文獻 --- p.186 / 附錄(及說明） --- p.194

Thesis (MA (Hons))--Macquarie University, School of English and Linguistics, 1981. / Bibliography: leaves 245-255.

The component processes specific to simultaneous interpreting and common to interpreting and listening were investigated. Experienced conference interpreters and inexperienced bilinguals performed aural-to-oral simultaneous interpreting of a narrative and a procedure from English into French and then gave a free recall of each immediately afterwards. A comparison group of bilinguals performed a simple listening task with the same materials. The texts were on an unfamiliar topic (positron emission tomography) and differed only with respect to frame type. / Experience showed a main effect on interpreting measures, (experienced interpreters performed more accurately), and interacted with text-structure variables that indexed proposition generation, but did not affect recall. Task did not have a main effect on recall and interacted weakly with text-structure variables. Text and Text-structure variables had very strong effects both for the interpreting and the recall measures. / The results were viewed as evidence that interpreting involves the same component processes as normal listening comprehension rather than constituting a specialized comprehension skill. Analyses of text-structure variables provided evidence for influence of high-level conceptual processing and other component processes both on line and off line. Since there was no evidence that interpreting interfered with comprehension, the qualitative on-line measures possible in the interpreting task appear to be generalizable to comprehension under more usual circumstances.

This thesis examines theories of translation which are explicit in the themes and implicit in the rhetorical uses of form in the work of Joyce, with a focus on the French translations of Ulysses and Finnegans Wake produced with his collaboration between 1921 and 1931. Philosophies of translation from Jerome through Benjamin plus work in translation theory by Even-Zohar and Toury inform this study of the ethics both of translating and of being translated in the modernist idiom. In identifying a translation ethic arising out of the modernist aesthetic, the thesis postulates a rhetoric of translation by analogy with Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction. To this end, key issues in translation studies are addressed: the critical status of the authorized collaborative translation; accounting in translation for persuasive (versus purely expressive) functions of literary works as text types; translation strategy as a contribution to the debate between essentialism or universal grammar and cultural relativism; the translation imagined as a frame narrative, and the translator as an implied frame narrator of varying invisibility and reliability; and translation as a model of cognitive processes such as reading, understanding, memory, and the growth of consciousness. Via a combination of descriptive, historical, and textual study, this set of topics in translation is shown to explain many thematic and technical preoccupations of Joyce - just as Joyce proves to be an ideal case for descriptive translation studies, not in spite but by virtue of his notional untranslatability. The thesis also seeks to contribute to Joyce studies proper: to an understanding of how Joyce's fiction both does and does not depart from conventions of western narrative; to a portrait of the implied author and undramatized narrator in Ulysses; to an appreciation of translation both broadly and narrowly defined as a recurrent theme in his work; and to a recognition of the influence of Joyce's many contemporary translators and their languages, cultures, and personalities upon his own innovating uses of language and narrative.

Johann Jacob Bodmer stands at the beginning of a new era that saw the establishment of major English literary influences in Germany along with the rise of English to become a language of importance of the European stage. The particular importance of this eighteenth-century Zurich translator and literary scholar lies in his translation of a canonical work of English literature, Paradise Lost, and in his tireless efforts to develop appreciation of this work in the German debate on aesthetics and translation of the 1730s. Bodmer was strongly opposed by scholars wishing to establish in Germany the neoclassical aesthetic conventions prevailing in France, then the hegemonic power in Europe. By overcoming the advocates of French literary models he paved the way for the widescale translation of English authors such as Shakespeare, and the adoption of English models. As a translator, Bodmer advocated norms of faithful translation that deviated from those advanced for Germany by the advocates of French literary models. This study explores the origin of the new Zurich ideas, and outlines the extensive debate on translation conducted in Germany in the 1730s, in which Bodmer and his colleague Johann Jacob Breitinger overturned the arguments of Johann Christoph Gottsched and his supporters. In a number of respects, Bodmer and Breitinger's ideas on translation can be seen as precursors of the 'foreignising' approach to translation developed by German thinkers such as Friedrich Schleiermacher at the end of the eighteenth century. My study also investigates Bodmer's translation practice in detail, based on analyses of his German translations of Paradise Lost. It gives particular attention to the way in which the debates of the 1730s prompted changes in his thinking on translation. Of especial interest here are his ideas on the translation of metaphor, to which he appears to have devoted more attention than any thinker before him. My study applies a new approach to studying translation history currently being developed by translation scholar Anthony Pym. Pym's 'professional interculture' ideas focus particular attention on individual translators and groups of translators, and the importance of their debates and discussions for negotiating translation norms.

Johann Jacob Bodmer stands at the beginning of a new era that saw the establishment of major English literary influences in Germany along with the rise of English to become a language of importance of the European stage. The particular importance of this eighteenth-century Zurich translator and literary scholar lies in his translation of a canonical work of English literature, Paradise Lost, and in his tireless efforts to develop appreciation of this work in the German debate on aesthetics and translation of the 1730s. Bodmer was strongly opposed by scholars wishing to establish in Germany the neoclassical aesthetic conventions prevailing in France, then the hegemonic power in Europe. By overcoming the advocates of French literary models he paved the way for the widescale translation of English authors such as Shakespeare, and the adoption of English models. As a translator, Bodmer advocated norms of faithful translation that deviated from those advanced for Germany by the advocates of French literary models. This study explores the origin of the new Zurich ideas, and outlines the extensive debate on translation conducted in Germany in the 1730s, in which Bodmer and his colleague Johann Jacob Breitinger overturned the arguments of Johann Christoph Gottsched and his supporters. In a number of respects, Bodmer and Breitinger's ideas on translation can be seen as precursors of the 'foreignising' approach to translation developed by German thinkers such as Friedrich Schleiermacher at the end of the eighteenth century. My study also investigates Bodmer's translation practice in detail, based on analyses of his German translations of Paradise Lost. It gives particular attention to the way in which the debates of the 1730s prompted changes in his thinking on translation. Of especial interest here are his ideas on the translation of metaphor, to which he appears to have devoted more attention than any thinker before him. My study applies a new approach to studying translation history currently being developed by translation scholar Anthony Pym. Pym's 'professional interculture' ideas focus particular attention on individual translators and groups of translators, and the importance of their debates and discussions for negotiating translation norms.

Johann Jacob Bodmer stands at the beginning of a new era that saw the establishment of major English literary influences in Germany along with the rise of English to become a language of importance of the European stage. The particular importance of this eighteenth-century Zurich translator and literary scholar lies in his translation of a canonical work of English literature, Paradise Lost, and in his tireless efforts to develop appreciation of this work in the German debate on aesthetics and translation of the 1730s. Bodmer was strongly opposed by scholars wishing to establish in Germany the neoclassical aesthetic conventions prevailing in France, then the hegemonic power in Europe. By overcoming the advocates of French literary models he paved the way for the widescale translation of English authors such as Shakespeare, and the adoption of English models. As a translator, Bodmer advocated norms of faithful translation that deviated from those advanced for Germany by the advocates of French literary models. This study explores the origin of the new Zurich ideas, and outlines the extensive debate on translation conducted in Germany in the 1730s, in which Bodmer and his colleague Johann Jacob Breitinger overturned the arguments of Johann Christoph Gottsched and his supporters. In a number of respects, Bodmer and Breitinger's ideas on translation can be seen as precursors of the 'foreignising' approach to translation developed by German thinkers such as Friedrich Schleiermacher at the end of the eighteenth century. My study also investigates Bodmer's translation practice in detail, based on analyses of his German translations of Paradise Lost. It gives particular attention to the way in which the debates of the 1730s prompted changes in his thinking on translation. Of especial interest here are his ideas on the translation of metaphor, to which he appears to have devoted more attention than any thinker before him. My study applies a new approach to studying translation history currently being developed by translation scholar Anthony Pym. Pym's 'professional interculture' ideas focus particular attention on individual translators and groups of translators, and the importance of their debates and discussions for negotiating translation norms.