文本显征及其在翻译中的差移
2008-5
外语教学与研究出版社
吴青
215
无
翻译涉及文本的理解与生成。现象学美学、话语研究、认知语言学可谓殊途同归，都注意到语言之于意识如同镜头之于景物。于是本文提出，任何一部文学作品都具备·种潜质，在被阅读的过程中对意识进行推拉与层，即“文本显征”。把握了它，就能了解作品映射到阅渎心理中的意识识构型，就可以进一步探究其心理指向。作者将经将经典美文《荷塘月色》及其三个英译本作为语料，突破了译本比较的传统方法，视各文本为独立的言语生命，先纵观缸个文本的内在，再横看单语语考察的结果，最终开启了对翻译研究中效果和差移这两个重要问题的思考。
List of FiguresList Of TablesAbbreviations1 introduction and Overview2 Salience in Aesthetics and Linguistics：Structure and Hierarchy of Consciousness as Molded by Language 2.1 Within Aesthetics：The Phenomenological Approach to Text 2.2 Within Linguistics：The Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language 2.2.1 Langacker’s Cognitive Linguistics 2.2.2 Discourse Stuldies 2.3 Summary3 Mapping Textual Salience 3.1 The Notion of Textual Salience 3.2 General Parameters in Mapping Textual Salience 3.2.1 Key Terms 3.2.1.1 THING VS.RELATION 3.2.1.2 Levels and Planes ofReading 3.2.2 General Paralneters 3.2.2.1 Selection.Perspective.Abstraction in a Conceptual Reading oya Linguistic Sign 3.2.2.2 Discourse Performance of a Linguistic Sign wfth Its Contextual Readingt 3.2.2.3 Culture—Specific or Discipline—Specific Association from Intertextual Readings of a Linguistic Sign 3.3 Summary4 Descriptive Stage One：Textual Salience Projected by the Origina 4.1 Introducing the Corpus3 4.2 Scope of Characterization3 4.3 Characterizing Textual Salience Projected by《荷塘月色》 4.3.1 Textual Salience Observed via THING.Signs3 4.3.1.1 Degree of Objectification of SELF：A Hierarchy of Salience Indexed in Deictic THING—Signs3 4.3.1.2 Formation of a Salience Hierarchr via Non—Deictic THING.Signs 4.3.2 Textual Salience Observed via RELAtiON.Signs 4.3.2.1 Temporality in Construal of Situations：Tw0 Indexes 4.3.2.2 Characterizing the Aspectual Phenomena in《荷塘月色》 4.3.2.3 Findings and Discussions 4.3.2.4 Summary 4.4 Summary：Mapping Textual Salience in the Original5 Descriptive Stage Two：Textual Salience Projected by the Translations and Comparison with the Original 5.1 Texmal Salience Projected by the Translations 5.1.1 Textual Salience Projected by TT 5.1.1.1 TextualSalience Observedvia THING.Signs 5.1.1.2 Textual Salience 0bserved via RELATION.Signs 5.1.2 Textual Salience Projected by TT 5.1.2.1 TextualSaHence Observedvia THING—SiRns 5.1.2.2 Textual Salience 0bserved via RELATION.Signs 5.1.3 TeXtual Salience Projected by TT 5.1.3.1 TextualSalience Observedvia THING—Signs 5.1.3.2 Textual Salience Observed via RELATION-Signs 5.2 Comparison Between the Translations and the Original with Respect to Textual Salience 5.3 Summary of the Descriptive and Comparative WorkRamifications ofthe Case Study：ATranslation-Related Query into Effect and Shift 6.1 Reflections on Effect：Potentiality VS.Actuality 6.1.1 AnAnalysis ofthe Notion ofEffect
The desire to understand why one text can impress the same reader so differently from another （more so especially of one with higher literariness as is commonly termed） turns into a quest for where such differences arise. Yet it should be emphasized that such a motivation has largely come from intuitive impressions over different translations of the same original and further from dissatisfaction with stopping at the intuitive level. Hence the following questions arise： Are there any properties of the text itself that largely shape the discourse processing experience and lead to variations， and what are they？ Exploration into the texts should be able to help us explain the variations. I believe that the potential forces at play within a text are endowed by the linguistic presentation， but that these potentials will not be actualized without the mechanisms via which the given language engages， and operates on， consciousness. The intense efforts of linguistics to uncover the mysteries of language throughout the twentieth century and the rise of the science of the mind in the late twentieth century encourage a conception of discourse processing experiences from the point of view of the mutual influence between language and the mind. Or to put it more specifically， discourse structurings manifested through linguistic presentation within a text can impose on consciousness while epistemic experiences of an individual mind contribute to the interpreting of the text. The fact that the neurobiological mechanisms involved are anything but well understood is less fundamental and relevant to the generative/interpretive variability than the existence of the minds capacity to impose alternate structures on a conceived phenomenon be it a real world event or a textual entity——as well as the structure of consciousness that is subject to alternate impositions by linguistic presentation. Salience， in a non-technical sense， refers to the state or quality of something standing out from the rest， hence implying a two-sidedness （a cognized object and a cognizing subject） and a hierarchy; while in the science of the mind it can be considered as pertinent to the study of attention， if we accept William James century-old definition of that term， i.e. "the taking possession by the mind...of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought" （cited "in Duncan ; my italics）. For James， attention is， loosely speaking， an adjustment of consciousness. Since the reality and importance of attention as a mental phenomenon is now beyond dispute， its evident properties such as relative level of intensity are well worth noting in an attempt to explore discourseexperience.
无