Much of the criticism directed at this chapter is based on its superficial review and on Gentzler’s harsh criti- cism of the latter. This chapter deals both with the influence Chomsky’s generative grammar had on Nida’s scientific claim of his dynamic equivalence and with the science of translation in German speaking coun- tries. Gentzler responded to those criticisms on the preface to the revised edition where he states that, ‘his book, how. L’auteur écarte aussi les études d’inspira- tion linguistique (Hatim et Mason, Bell, Nord, etc.) ou à vocation empi- rique (Krings, Lôrscher, Tirkkonen- Condit, Dancette, Séguinot, etc.) (Larose, 1996 : 164). On s’étonne que Steiner, Newmark, de Beaugrande et Pym, auteurs non négligeables dans le domaine de la traductologie contemporaine, soient absents de Contemporary Theories of Translation. Why writing a second re- vised edition then? Its first edition raised much contro- versy as to the choice of approaches, as Larose puts it: Sont donc exclus tous les travaux des traductologues français (de Mounin à Berman, en passant par Ladmiral) et canadiens d’expres- sion française ou anglaise. , by Edwin Gentzler, presents the same structure as its first edition, that is, seven chapters divided into different sections providing a historical over- view and discussing some of the most promin ent approach es over the last decades.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |