国外翻译论文文档格式.docx
- 文档编号:22157486
- 上传时间:2023-02-02
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:105
- 大小:91KB
国外翻译论文文档格式.docx
《国外翻译论文文档格式.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《国外翻译论文文档格式.docx(105页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
translating
Messagesfrom‘dolphinese’presupposesthatthecontentandthepurport
Oftheutterancesofdolphinsisneithrerentirelybeneath,norutterlybeyond,Ahumanconceptionofcommunicativeacts.Thereis,infact,noguaranteeThatgraspingthenatureofthepragmaticsofdolphincommunicativePerformanceisnottotallyoutsidethescopeofhumanimagination.
Forallthatcross-linguistictranslation(translationproper)isnotoriouslyProblematicandfraughtwithdifficulties,translatorsfromEnglishtoGerman,HungariantoFrench,RussiantoSwahili,ChinesetoGujerati,andSoon,atleastdonotfaceproblemsofsuchamagnitudeasdo
‘translatorsFromdolphinese’.Thoughtranslationproperisacross-culturalpuzzle,andScepticismaboutfulltranslatabilitywithoutdistortionis,rightly,wide-Spreadamongthosewhotheoriseabouttranslation,thereisnochancethatTheperformanceofcommunicativeactsinanotherhumansociety,noMatterhowstrangeanduncannyitmaylookatfirstsightwhenviewedFromacrossaculturalboundary,couldbebeyondhumanimagining.
Whenhumanbeingscommunicate,theyperformactsthatfallintothe
Rangeofwhatotherhunanbeings,eventhosefromvastlydifferentculturalBackgrounds,areinprinciplecapableofempathizingwith.Thispresumption(andIstressthatitisapresumption)definesthelimitsofacautious‘universalism’or,moreprecisely,anintellectualpositionbetweenuniverSalismandrelativism.WhatmembersofoneculturecanbeimaginedbyMembersofanotherculture,eveniftheydootherwise.itistothisextentThathumancommunicationis‘universal’.
SincetheearlyworkofAustin(1962),andsubsequentlyofSearle(1969,979),theideathatutterancesareformsof‘doing’hasbecometoallintentsandpurposesaninterdisciplinarycommonplace.Theview,spearheade
dBythenotionofperformativeutterances(Austin,1962),accordingtowhichAllutterancesaremeansofperformingintendedactionshastakensolidHoldinrecent‘pragmatic’approachestosemiotics(Parret,1983),linguistics(Levinson,1983;
Brown&
Levinson,1978)–ithasalsomadeitsinfluenceFeltinanthropology(Gumperz,1982)and,ofcourse,intheoryoftranslation(Hatim&
Mason,1990).Theperformativeintentionbehind,andembedded
In,everyutterance(infact,everycommunicativeact)isusuallyreified使具体化
Underthelabelof‘illocutionaryforce’(Searle,1969);
thatis,theillocutionaryforceofanutterance–itsmostsalientpragmaticpurpose–isthePerformativeintentionwhichtheutteranceserves.
SinceadiscussionofillocutionaryforceentailsananalyticappraisalofSupposedintentionsjudgedbyextemalfunctionalcriteria,Ipreferto
Designatethisperformativeaspectofutterancesbythetermillocutionary
Function.AcautiousformofuniversalismwouldgrantthatthelllocutionaryFunctionofeveryhumanactofcommunicationis,inprinciple,knowable
(though,incidentally,thesamecautiousintellectualpositionwouldExpressadegreeofskepticismabouttheknowabilityoftheillocutionaryFunctionsofcommunicationactsperformedbynon-humananimals).Furthermore,inthelightoftheearlierpresumptionabouthumanempathy,AqualifieduniversalismwouldhavetostretchtothebeliefthatillocutionaryFunctronscanbecomprehendedacrossthemostdiverseculturalboundaries.ThisBeliefdoesnot,however,extendtosupposingthatthecross-culturalAppraisalofillocutionaryfunctionsiseasy.Onthecontrary,culturalRelativitymakesthisahighlysensitiveandproblematicissue.
Becausethe‘speechacttheory’initiatedbyAustinandSearleisfirmly
EmbeddedinatraditionofWestemphilosophy,theconceptof‘illocutionaryforce,attemptsattaxonomies(生物)分类学,分类系统ofillocution(Searl,1979),aswellasExamplesofillocutionaryacts,tendtobediscussedintermsofAnimplicitlyUniversalistframework:
:
theculture-specificityandcross-culturaldiversityOfwhatIwouldprefertocallillocutionaryfunctionsisanissuethatcanHardlyevenariseinsuchaframework.Inshort,thefamiliarillocutionary
Categoriesvalidforthepragmaticsofallhumansocieties.
Withthespreadoftheinfluenceof‘speechacttheory’beyond
Philosophy~--intolinguisticsandintoanthropology_camealsoa
Looseningofthebondsbetweenillocutionaryactsandpan-humanistic
Theorizing(Ballmer&
Brennenstuhl,1980;
Wierzbicka,1985a,b,1991).InParticular,theworkofWierzbickaisdirectedatasubstantialrelativisingOfthenotionofspeechactsand,alongwithit,ofnotionsofillocutionaryFunction.Forinstance,hercontrastivestudiesofhowspeechactsarePerformedinEnglishandPolish,respectively,haveaspecificallyde-universalisingaim;
assheherselfputsit,inreferencetothebehaviourofSpeakers:
‘Itisnotpeopleingeneralwhobehaveinthewaydescribed,itisthespeakersofEnglish.Intermsofmyownposition,equallybalancedBetweenlinguisticsandanthropology,theearliermentionedcompromiseBetweenuniversalismandrelativismappearstoofferthemostplausibleAltemative:
theillocutionaryfunctionsmanifestedinonelanguage/cultureAreautonomouscultural/linguisticcategories(relativism),butareimaginablebymembersofothercultures(qualifieduniversalism)and,tosome
Extent,arecross-culturallytranslatable,thoughnot,ofcourse,withoutTranslationloss.
Illocutionaryfunctionsare,inthesimplestterms,thethingsthatpeople
doinmakingutterances.ThereisalwayssomethingteleologicalabouttheseFunctions,andabouttheutterancesservingthesefunctions:
toformulateanIllocutionaryfunctionistoexpressanassessmentoftheaimorpurposeofAnutterance.Thus,toassertthat‘Haveyoureadthisbook?
’hastheIllocutionaryfunctionofaquestionistoattributetosuchanutterance,inGeneral,theaimorpurposeofelicitinginformationfromaninterlocutor.Trueenough,onoccasiononemayconcludethatthe‘real’or‘ulterior’aimOfutteringsuchaquestionistopatronizeandbelittle(perhapseventoEmbarrass);
but‘patronise’,belittle’and‘embarrass’,too,contributetotheFormulationofateleologicalillocutionaryfunction.
Twoimplicationsoftheseobservationsareworthspellingout..First,theExampleofutterancesof‘Haveyoureadthisbook?
’pointsupanecessaryDistinctionbetweengrammaticalformandpragmaticuse:
allutterancesof‘Haveyoureadthisbook?
’are‘interrogative’ingrammaticalform,butnotAllitsutterancessharetheplainillocutionar
yfunctionofelicitinginformaTion.Second,thevariousillocutionaryfunctionsthat‘HaveyoureadthisBook?
’canbeimaginedtofulfilindifferentcontextsallhavedesignationsinthelanguage/culturetowhichtheseillocutionaryfunctionspertain.Fromlinguisticevidencealone,onewouldhavetoconcludethatmembersOfacultureshareaconsensualawarenessoftheillocutionaryfunctionsOperativeintheirlanguage/culture.InvestigatingillocutionaryfunctionsIn,say,EnglishcansafelytaketheformofaparallelinvestigationofEnglishTermsfor‘doingthings’withEnglishutterances(Ballmer&
Brennenstuhl,
1980).However,whenitcomestodesignatingtheillocutionaryfunctions
ofagivenlanguage/culturebylabelsdrawnfromanotherlanguage,the
Situationisratherdifferent:
oftensuchlabelscanatbestbehighly
approximateglossesforillocutionaryfunctionswhichhaveindigenous
Designationsbutaredifficulttotranslateandrequireexplanationby
Paraphrase.ThoughtheculturalremovebetweenWestemEuropeand
Hungarycanhardlybeseenasvast(certainlynotincomparisonwiththe
Culturaldistancebetween,say,BritainandChina,ortheUnitedStatesandIndigenousAmazoniantribes),theillocutionaryfunctiondesignatedinMagyarbytheterm‘felkoszonteni’(roughly,togreetandexpressgood
Wishestosomeoneonaspecialoccasion)providesagoodexampleofthe
Culture-specificityandcross-culturalnon-transferabilityofillocutionary
Functions.WhatHungariansdowithutterancesinperformingtheact
Designatedas‘felkoszonteni’,thoughitmaypartiallyoverlapwith
‘toastingsomeone’shealth’,issimplynotthekindofthingpeopledoin
Britishculture.ImplicitinwhathasbeensaidsofaristhatillocutionaryfunctionisaPropertyof‘utterances’;
this,however,instantlyraisesthequestion:
Utterancesofwhat?
Insofarasgreetingreferstoaparticulartypeof
Illocutionaryfunction(differentlyconceivedanddiffererntlyperfonnedin
Differentcultures),andbecausegreetingsvaryinextentfromthemonosylLabic‘Hi!
’inEnglishtothemulti-turnexchangesinWolof(lrvine,1974:
170-175),itfollowsthatillocutionaryfunctionmaypertaintoavarietyof
Different‘sizes’oflinguisticunit.Someoftheseunitsclearlyconsistofa
Successionofsentenceswhileothersappeartofallbelowwhatwouldbe
Consensuallyrecognizedbylinguistsasa‘completesentence’.
Theissueofdefinitionsof‘sentence’acrossthevastvarietyoflinguisticTheoriesfromtraditionalgrammartotheplethoraofcurrentapproachesisToocomplextotakeuphere;
yetacommitmenttosomedefinitionisUnavoidable.Ipropose,therefore,toadoptanotionofsentencehoodWhereby‘sentence’correspondstotheminunumlinguisticunitendowedWithillocutionaryfunction.Thatistosay,ItaketheviewthatutterancesOperatingincontextascomplete,self_containeds
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 国外 翻译 论文