翻譯文體學(xué)研究

內(nèi)容概要

《翻譯文體學(xué)研究》由Jean
Boase-Beier所著，首先追溯了早期的文體觀，闡明文體對(duì)翻譯的影響，又從讀者視角和譯者視角分別探討文體的作用和文體再創(chuàng)作過(guò)程中的選擇。作者隨之提出翻譯研究的認(rèn)知轉(zhuǎn)向和文體學(xué)的認(rèn)知觀，最后全面總結(jié)翻譯研究的文體學(xué)途徑，并介紹其在翻譯實(shí)踐中的作用。

作者簡(jiǎn)介

　　博厄斯·貝耶爾，東英吉利大學(xué)高級(jí)講師，教授翻譯和文體學(xué)。在相關(guān)領(lǐng)域著作頗豐，除合作主編了《文學(xué)翻譯實(shí)踐》（The Practices of Literary Translation）外，還編撰了《看得見(jiàn)的詩(shī)人》（Visible Poets）等系列詩(shī)歌集。

書(shū)籍目錄

Acknowledgements
Introduction: Style in Translation
I.　The Role of Style in Translation
　1.1　 Reading and writing style in translation
　1.2　 Before stylistics: the spirit of a text
　1.3　 Universals of style and creative transposition
　1.4　Contextual, pragmatic and cognitive aspects of style
　　 and translation
　1.5　 Relativity and thinking for translation
　1.6　 Translating literary and non-literary texts
2.　 Theories of Reading and Relevance
　 2.1　 Reading, style and the inferred author
　 2.2　Implication, relevance and minimax
　2.3　 Relevance theory and translating for relevance
3.　The Translator's Choices
　3.1　 Style and choice
　3.2　 Clues, games and decisions
　3.3　 Recreated choices in translation
4.　Cognitive Stylistics and Translation
　4.1　 The cognitive turn in stylistics and translation
studies
　4.2　Translating the mind in the text
　4.3　Ambiguity and textual gaps
　4.4　 Foregrounding, salience and visibility
　4.5　 Metaphor, mind and translation
　4.6　 Iconicity, mimesis and diagesis
　4.7　 Cognitive stylistics and the pretence of translation
5.　A Stylistic Approach in Practice
　5.1　 Elements of a stylistic approach to translation
　5.2　 Using style to translate mind
　5.3　 Ambiguous translation
　5.4　 Attracting attention: patterns and other deviant
structures
　5.5　 Metaphorical thought translated
　5.6　 Keeping the echo: translating for iconicity
6.　Conclusion
Bibliography
Index

章節(jié)摘錄

　　Views of the nature and importance of reading vary greatly， however， inthe degree of open-endedness they envisage， and the role they assign to sty-listic features of the text. Put simply， the question for translation is this： ifmeaning cannot simply be read off from the source text （（i） above） and meas-ured against the real world （（ii） above）， how does the translator find it？Whatever answers we give to this question will apply equally to the readersof the target text. The answer a formalist critic such as Jakobson would havegiven would have been that， for any text， meaning was put there by the au-thor （cf. Hirsch 1967； Dowling 1999：x）， whose intention drove a set oflinguistic choices. These choices， which constituted the style， could be un-covered in the text by the reader. Through close stylistic analysis of the text，such as was also favoured by English close-reading critics like Richards（e.g. 1924） or American New Critics such as Wimsatt （1954a）， the readercould then decode the meaning which in every sense preceded the text.Dowling's parallel is the Rosetta Stone， which， he says， had meaning beforeit was decoded （1999：16）. The comfortable notion that meaning was put intoa text by its author， to be decoded and re-encoded by the translator， makesthe job of a translator， if not straightforward， at least clearly defined.　　But though the New Critics shared with the formalist critics the viewthat meaning resides in the text， they did not necessarily equate it with themeaning intended by the author. Beardsley （1982：189）， for example， statesexplicitly that knowledge of an author's intentions will not help the reader orcritic to interpret a text； the belief that it will is the "intentional fallacy"（Wimsatt 1954b）. It is not what the author intended， but what a text actuallysays， that makes interpretation possible. The author's choices which underliestyle thus become less important： the translator must pay close attention tothe style itself and it will reveal the meaning to be transferred into the targetlanguage.　　A writer like Fish to some extent opposes both these views： it is thereader who creates the interpretation； however， the reader always tries "todiscern and therefore to realize an author's intention" （1980：161）. But"intention" is here not to be understood in a narrow sense； it is simply arecognition that readers "are dealing with intentional beings" （ibid.） whenthey read a text. This does not， in Fish's view， lead to a notion of concrete-ness or stability of meaning； but there is a "community" （ibid.） of readerswho will agree to some extent. This suggests that a translator must be awareof such commonality of interpretation， a view endorsed by Snell-Hornby，who emphasizes the role of "group convention" （1995：24）， particularly ifispecialized texts.　　……

圖書(shū)封面

圖書(shū)標(biāo)簽Tags

無(wú)

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    翻譯文體學(xué)研究 PDF格式下載

---