汉英翻译与跨语认知
2009-6
南京大学出版社
刘华文
227
古历乙丑端午节前夕，正当“杨花绕江啼晓鹰”，敝人出席由上海交通大学外国语学院与中国高等教育出版集团联袂主办的“词典数字化与英语教育学术研讨会”之际，华文发来电邮称，他的新作《汉英翻译与跨语认知》业已付梓，将由南京大学出版社出版，并以序言见委。我不假思索，欣然应命。我为本书作序，捉笔之先，即感思绪百端；临到敲击键盘之际，更觉千言万语涌向指端，这并非我的“文思泉涌”，而是所感者与欲言者都不是一桩简单浮浅之事。正因思绪太繁，文字反觉不济。于是我决定：此序不一定像篇“序”，写成杂感随想，也未尝不可。以下便粗述我因本书而发生的一些漫想，来一个“试遣愚衷”。 华文生于山东，长期受齐鲁文化的熏染，有丈夫气概，亦不乏儒雅之风。华文1992年考入南京大学攻读硕士学位，专修双语词典学，毕业时即以题为《词典作为文本的研究》的学位论文为人所注目，随即留校任教，在从事日常的教学与科研工作的同时，博览群书，勤于治学，笔耕不辍，成果迭出。后于2000至2004年在职攻读翻译学研究方向的博士学位，所撰《汉诗英译的主体审美论》的博士学位论文公开出版后，受到译界学人的好评。华文平时话极少，只是静静地听席间他人海聊神侃；偶尔插话，亦讷讷言之，如绝句般地精短。他文在心中，不在嘴上。
《汉英翻译与跨语认知》的前九章主要集中在对汉英翻译过程中语义和句法两个层面的认知转化特征的研究和探讨上。《汉英翻译与跨语认知》第十章也是最后一章将兼顾语义、句法和语用三个层面，通过考察包括形容词和副词这些修饰语的语义指向（semantic orientation）和句法位置（syntactic position）的跨语认知调整，透视修饰语因这些调整所连带的语用功能（pragmatic function）的变化。在汉英翻译过程中，汉语原文为了表达细腻的语义内容和语用目的，往往会将修饰语与被修饰的成分进行句法错置，即将其放置在并非它所语义指向的被修饰语附近，从而造成了语义指向和句法位置的错位。而经过汉英翻译的认知转换之后常常会出现修饰语归位的现象，即将修饰语回归到它所语义指向的被修饰成分的位置。这种归位的后果即是句法的跨语转换现象，同时也会影响语义内容表达的细腻性以及原文语用目的在译文中的实现。
刘华文，1968年3月出生，山东嘉祥人。南京大学外国语学院副教授、翻译学博士、硕士生导师，江苏省翻译协会理事。专著有《汉诗英译的主体审美论》，在Meta、《中国翻译》、《中国外语》、《翻译学报》等学术期刊上发表论文二十余篇，译著多部，曾任《新时代英汉大词典》编委。研究方向有认知与翻译、基于翻译的英汉对比语言学、翻译的语言哲学研究、诗歌翻译、双语词典学等。
1 Introduction： co-refererice， inter-structure and re-conceptualization in C-E translation1.1 Introduction1.2 The co-referential relation in C-E translation1.3 Inter-structural relations between SL and TL1.4 Conceptual relations between SL and TL1.5 Conclusion2 Cognitive abilities in C-E translation2.1 Introduction2.2 Images-raw materials for cognitive event in translation2.3 Cognitive abilities in C-E translation2.3.1 Recuperation of scene2.3.2 Selective readjustment2.3.3 Perspective shifts2.3.4 Abstraction2.4 Summary： iconicity as the principle of mechanism for cognitive abilities3 Cognitive characteristics of re-categorization in C-E translation3.1 Re-categorization： a cognitive mechanism in translation3.2 The cognitive characteristics of re-categorization in C-E translation3.2.1 The confinedness in re-categorization3.2.2 The split-levelness in re-categorization3.2.3 The parasiticness of re-categorization3.2.4 The bi-directionalness in re-categorization3.3 Conclusion： translational cognitive re-categorization in the light of linguistic philosophy4 Semantic construction through space blending in C-E translation4.1 Introduction4.2 Space blending： a theoretical account4.2.1 Space blending theory4.2.2 Cold dish or cold plate?4.3 Frame， domain， space， script： parameters in cross-lingual space blending4.3.1 Frame： a parameter pertaining to the spatial proximity within a scene4.3.2 Domain： a parameter pertaining to the total knowledge involved and the interrelatedness of its constituents4.3.3 Script： a parameter pertaining to a temporally sequenced space4.3.4 Ease： a parameter against which a constituent in a frame， domain or script is profiled4.4 Conclusion5 Two levels of cross-lingual metonymic substitution in C-E translation5.1 Metonymy in cognitive perspective5.2 Types of metonymy5.3 Metaphor-metonymy relationship5.4 Metonymie approaches to C-E translation5.4.1 Low-level metonymy5.4.2 High-level metonymy5.4.3 Metaphtonymy5.5 Conclusion6 Re-lexicalization of motion-event in C-E translation6.1 Introduction： what is re-lexicalization?6.2 Re-lexicalization patterns in C-E translation： eventualization，event composition and event decomposition6.3 Principles in opting for re-lexicalization patterns ".6.4 Eventualization from verb-weak Chinese6.5 Re-lexicalization of motion event in C-E translation by composition and decomposition6.5.1 Motion + Co-Event 1t6.5.2 Conflation of cause Co-Event onto verb6.5.3 Conflation of path onto verb6.5.4 Conflation of figure ontoverb6.5.5 Conflation of result/effect onto verb6.5.6 Conflation of ground onto verb6.6 Translators two optional tendencies： verb framing and satellite framing6.7Conclusion： detection of semantic potentials for cross-linguistic lexicalization7 Re-matching of verb with construction in C-E translation7.1 Introduction： verb and construction7.2 Verb-construction links in C-E translation7.3 The re-matching of equivalent verb for SL with construction7.3.1 Full compatibility in verb-construction links7.3.2 Cognitive motivation for verb-construction integration7.3.3 The main consequence of verb-construction re-matching in C-E translation： a semantic shift7.4 Conclusion8 Inter-constructional correlations in C-E translation8.1 Introduction8.1.1 Theoretical prerequisites8.1.2 Tentative observations8.2 Constructional productivity in C-E translation8.2.1 Difference in the degree of constructional productivity between Chinese and English8.2.2 Productivity of English constructions in C-E translation8.3 Inter-constructional correlations by metonymic inheritance in C-E translation8.3.1 Sub-partial links in C-E translation8.3.2 Componential inheritance of predicative verb and argument role8.4 Inter-constructional correlations by metaphorical extension in C-E translation8.4.1 Full extension8.4.2 Argument role contribution8.4.3 Argument role annulment8.5 Inter-constructional transformation in C-E translation8.6 Conclusion9 Fictivity and factivity of event re-conceptualization inC-E translation9.1 Theoretical framework： factivity and fictivity of cognitive conceptualization9.2 Path specification and event re-conceptualization in C-E translation9.2.1 Orientation paths9.2.2 Radiation paths9.2.3 Shadow paths9.2.4 Sensory paths9.2.5 Pattern paths10 Semantic orientation，syntactic position and pragmatic function of modifier in C-E translationReferencesSubject indexChinese postscript
Here, the lady with white hair actually appears in two temporallydifferent spaces: the current reality space and the mental space in 1929.The roles the white hair lady assumes are identical in the two spaces buthave different values filled. The temporal space situated in 1929 isaccessed by the role it shares with the base space in reality. With emphases on different aspects of the cognitive structureof concepts, the cognitive linguists have assigned different namesto mental space. Then we have such names as frame, schema,script, global pattern, pseudo-text, cognitive model, experientialgestalt, base, scene, etc. （Croft and Cruse 2004:8）. This chaptercannot encompass them all into the research of the space blendingin C-E translation. Among them frame, domain, space, base, andscript are brought into the landscape. Frame stresses the spatialproximity within a scene. So in a RESTAURANT frame, we cansummon up into mind CUSTOMER, WAITER, ORDERING,EATING, BILL. These frame-related eoncepts have spatialimmediacy to each other. In comparison with frame, domain canincur the total sum of concepts pertaining to a domain or mutuallypertaining, no matter how far or near the concepts are spatiallyfrom each other. Even in the mapping of source domain onto targetdomain as occurs in the metaphorical conceptualization we can havetwo domains essentially unrelated. By contrast, space attachesemphasis onto the distinction between the venues whereconceptualization happens. Then it more often than not designatesthe mental space which is engendered by beliefs, wishes, andhypotheses. However, these mental spaces cannot come into beingindependently of the base space, which actually finds itself in thereal world despite the fact it still relies on the mental media. In thestudy of the space blending it is much intended to address theinteraction between the mental spaces and the base spaces.
