翻译文体学研究
2011-3
上海外语教育出版社
博厄斯·贝耶尔
176
无
《翻译文体学研究》由Jean
Boase-Beier所著，首先追溯了早期的文体观，阐明文体对翻译的影响，又从读者视角和译者视角分别探讨文体的作用和文体再创作过程中的选择。作者随之提出翻译研究的认知转向和文体学的认知观，最后全面总结翻译研究的文体学途径，并介绍其在翻译实践中的作用。
博厄斯·贝耶尔，东英吉利大学高级讲师，教授翻译和文体学。在相关领域著作颇丰，除合作主编了《文学翻译实践》（The Practices of Literary Translation）外，还编撰了《看得见的诗人》（Visible Poets）等系列诗歌集。
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
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. ……
无
这是学校的教授重点推荐的书，感觉很不错，很多观点很有见解，值得一读~