国外翻译论文文档格式.docx

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