bson Bassnett-Makgayr allocates three types of translation: rephrasing, actually translation and transmutation. Describing procedure of translational activity, in the key provisions Bassnett-Makgayr accepts Eu.Nida «s concept, supplementing it with the detailed description of actions of the translator at a choice of a variant of translation. On the contrary, in treatment of translational equivalence the researcher disperses from the concept of dynamic translation of Nida, thus positively estimates classification of types of the equivalence, offered by A.Popovic. in Anglo-American theory of translation interest to «alienating» translation, the translation, urged to reveal a strangeness of a form, syntax - figurative thinking - the translated text amplifies. Translation is considered as a way and means to enter the reader into the world alien to it. Such installation is connected first of all with the German tradition of translational thought - with Goethe, Shleyermakher, Gelderlin, George, Benjamin »s names. [28, p. 50-63]. Great interest causes recently at modern translators become in many respects Walter Benjamin «s classical essay« Task of the translator » where as one of requirements of «good» translation the principle of exact copying of syntax of original work is declared. Benjamin recognizes that translation is intended actually not for the «ordinary» reader, the purpose of translation consists in revealing relationship of languages, their ratio among themselves. If for Nida «spirit» of work consists that is, that, according to Benjamin, it is covered in syntactic structure, ie in shape. Today »s researchers of theory of translation are involved by an originality and dissimilarity of foreign language and thinking that, certainly, is reflected and in syntactic level. Modern researchers more than ever, are anxious with the relations the author - the translator - the reader, understanding and preservation of an individual originality of each of participants of this quite often difficult communicative chain. Among the most influential researchers who polemize today with the concept and practice of «natural», «semantic» translation, it is necessary to call J. Stajner, L.Venuti, D. Robinson. Recognizing all dissimilarity of the approaches offered by these authors, it is possible to notice that all of them challenge the status and tasks of the translator in the modern world challenge the idea which has developed by eyelids of the translator as about transparent glass between cultures that the translator acts as the translator nothing introducing «from himself» that each translator «suppresses» himself in translation. Venuti and Stajner accuse natural translation of a cultural narcissism, that translation of this sort is somewhat useless as in the center of attention of such translation - not foreign culture, not others originality, and own idea of ??what has to be «foreign» culture. D. Robinson polemizes both with alienating, and with mastering translation. Robinson notes that in the field of theory of translation the unsoluble gap between the theory and translation practice is observed. Robinson suggests considering the translator as the personality creative, conceiving, ie to recognize that any translator, carrying out any translation, introduces - he wants it or not - in work something and from itself (himself).
.5 Translation studies development in England
V century AD the popu...
