鲁迅《狂人日记》中反语英译的认知研究文献综述

 2021-12-28 21:28:20

全文总字数：18308字

文献综述

文 献 综 述A Cognitive Study of the Translation of Irony in Lu Xuns Diary of a Madman鲁迅《狂人日记》中反语翻译的认知研究1. IntroductionDiary of a Madman, a short story by Lu Xun, was first published in the monthly magazine La Jeunesse in 1918. It is the first and most influential modern work written in vernacular Chinese, and was subsequently included in the Call to Arms, a collection of short stories. It is considered a cornerstone piece of the New Culture Movement. The madman in the short story is portrayed as a person who suffers from a phobia of persecution. His unusual thoughts and behaviors have caused him to be excluded in his living environment, and he is considered a lunatic. Through the depiction of the persecuted madman and the self-reported description, the novel reveals the authors resistance to Chinese feudal ethics. This is achieved largely through the use of irony. Indeed, irony plays a very important role in our daily life, conversation and literary creation. It not only conveys information, but also implicates a certain attitude, emotion and psychological state of the speaker. The story was read as an ironic attack on traditional Chinese culture and a call for a New Culture. It is rare to find such skillful use of irony as Diary of a Madman in ancient and modern Chinese novels. In fact, Diary of a Madman is a classic masterpiece of irony. This thesis aims to explore the translation of ironies in Lu Xuns Diary of a Madman from the perspective of cognitive translatology. The thesis is divided into five chapters. Chapter One is the introduction part, which presents the research background, research questions and the overall structure. Chapter Two focuses on the review of relevant literature, including the historical background of theoretical framework and relevant previous studies. Chapter Three introduces the theoretical framework - cognitive translatology and Conceptual Blending Theory. Chapter Four analyzes the translation of ironies in Diary of a Madman. The last chapter is the conclusion, which summarizes the main findings, points out the limitations and puts forward suggestions for further research.2. Literature Review2.1 Defining ironyIrony is a complex linguistic phenomenon and is one of the oldest concepts in western literary discourse. The English word irony originates from Greek eironeia by way of Latin ironia, meaning dissembler in speech, or dissimulation. Irony is defined as A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the word used. (Oxford English Dictionary 1989:89). It can be concluded that irony is saying one thing on the surface but in fact the real meaning is opposite to the literal meaning.2.2 Previous studies of irony2.2.1 Studies of irony abroadSince the 1960s, many scholars have analyzed irony from the perspective of non-linguistic approach and linguistic approach. Non-linguistic field includes the rhetorical approach, philosophical approach and psychological approach. Linguistic approach includes semantic approach, pragmatic approach and cognitive approach. Here, the focus will be put on the studies from linguistic approach.Roy (1977) believes that any sentence that has a possible ironic reading has a semantic focus, which may appear in the main clause or in both the main clause and the subordinate clause, but never in the subordinate clause alone. Holdcroft (1983) regards irony as an implicit evaluative speech act and emphasizes that such factors as the speaker, the listener, and the speakers intention must be considered. Clark and Gerrigs (1984) Pretense Theory considers the semantic basis of irony to be disguise, saying that the person who is ironic actually disguises as another character (including tone, demeanor, etc.). The study of irony from the perspective of pragmatics begins with H. P. Grice. Grice (1975) believes that the purpose of the irony is to express other meanings, the hearer deduces a proposition which was obviously contrary to what the speaker said. He puts forward the famous Cooperation Principle which consists of four maxims: maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relevance and maxim of manner and believes that irony violates the qualitative criterion of the Cooperative Principle. Leech agrees that irony generates from the violation of maxim of quality, but he argues that the Cooperative Principle cannot explain why speakers dont state ironic intention directly rather than recurring to the ironic utterances. To solve the problem and improve Grices theory, Leech (1983) proposes the Politeness Principle. Sperber and Wilson (1986) consider irony as a kind of echoic allusion and explain irony from the perspective of cognitive approach. Sperber and Wilsons (1992) Echoic Interpretation Theory emphasizes the role of encyclopedic knowledge in generating and understanding irony. And it creatively introduces the concept of echo, which believes that irony is an echoic interpretation of a previous meaning, conveying a meaning to echo derogatory attitude. They hold the firm belief that echo is the core of ironic discourse. There are three factors participating in the understanding of irony according to them: First, whether the utterance is echoic or not should be confirmed; second, the source of the idea echoed should be known; third, whether the speak holds a negative attitude towards the echoed opinion should be confirmed.2.2.2 Studies of Irony at HomeOn the basis of introducing, absorbing and summarizing the irony theory of modern linguistics, Liu Zhengguang (2002) clarifies the cognition of the key issues in the study of irony, such as the role of context, whether to deal with straight meaning or not and the time to deal with it. He believes that the role of context in determining the meaning of irony and the role of literal meaning in the processing process are all questions of degree. Wen Xu (2004) mainly studies the understanding of ironic discourse with relevance theory as the core framework. On this basis, Wen discusses the textual function and stylistic effect of ironic discourse, which reveals the internal structure and system of verbal irony in English and Chinese to some extent. Tu Jing (2004) is unique in his exploration of the essential attributes of irony from the cognitive level. He believes that antagonism is the intrinsic property of irony, which exists at all levels of irony and is quasi-typical. The essence of irony lies in the semantic clash or tension between the category involved in the proposition and the context category. Based on the framework of cognitive pragmatic theory, Zeng Yantao (2004) gives a panoramic view of the cognitive process of understanding irony and argues that understanding irony is a multidimensional and interactive reasoning derivation process. Intercommunity or mutual knowledge is a cognitive prerequisite for understanding irony. 2.2.3 Irony identificationAccording to Sperber Wilson, there are three factors involving in the understanding of irony. First, A must realize that Bs words are echoic utterances, that is, they are echoic words or thoughts. Then A should identify the source of the echoic utterance. Next, A needs to identify Bs attitude towards the echoic idea, in which case A needs the contextual information. A judges that B is opposed to the echoic idea through Bs intonation and facial expression and other paralanguage features.There are many researches on irony from different perspectives and methods. These researches summarize the obvious ironic features, which are also considered as the criteria for judging whether a sentence is ironic: 1) Irony is usually in the form of favorable states of affairs; 2) Irony conveys a critical attitude; 3) Irony is a manifestation of multi-dimensional incompatibility. These features play an important role in identifying irony.2.2.4 Irony translationMateo (1995) states in his article that most critics agree that translators must try to keep the original ambiguity, tone or style in the source text. When that is not possible, they opt for another equivalent effect: adapting the idea or the intention of the original to the target culture in order to provoke an equivalent response in the reader. Whats more, most critics suggest that although one cannot be completely faithful, there is no need to change what is easily translatable. The translator should adapt to target language culture when there is an equivalent. They should not explain the irony since explanation destroys it. The translator is supposed to keep the essence and adapt it to target language conventions even if it changes the specific meaning.2.3 Previous studies of the translation of Diary of a MadmanLi Yan (2013) mainly studies the characteristics of Yang Hsien-yi Gladys Yangs (1972) translation of Diary of a Madman, combining the cultural psychology of the text and the translators cultural psychology. From the perspective of vocabulary, rhetoric and description, she identifies the characteristics of Yang Hsien-yis translation: he mainly adopts literal translation, supplemented by free translation. She also mentions the translation style of Lyell (1990) and Lovell (2009). Lyell believes that readers will find the annotations helpful, so his translation views directly lead to more annotations and verbose expressions. Lovell mainly adopts domestication strategy when translating Lu Xuns novels, paying attention to the acceptability of the translation, and presenting the original work to readers using the ready-made expression methods in British English. Lovell has the least annotations and the most changes to the original text.2.4 Research gapThere are many relevant analyses on irony. These studies are illustrated by examples, but few people focus on the irony phenomenon in one book. Diary of a Madman is an excellent literary work in China, in which there are a lot of irony. But there are few studies on the English translation of these ironies, let alone the analysis of irony in different English translations from the perspective of cognitive translation.3. Theoretical framework: Cognitive translatology and Conceptual Blending Theory3.1 Cognitive translatology Cognitive translatology is an interdisciplinary subject that closely combines cognitive science and translation studies (Wang Yin 2014). The methodology of cognitive translatology is derived from cognitive science, and the two main branches of cognitive science include psychology and cognitive linguistics. Therefore, cognitive translatology mainly uses the theories and methods of cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics to explain translation phenomena and reveal the essence and laws of translation (Lu Weizhong Wang Fuxiang 2013).Cognitive translatology is a new paradigm of translation studies being formed. In 1972, J. S. Holmes presented a paper entitled The Name and Nature of Translation Studies at the 3rd International Conference on Applied Linguistics held in Copenhagen. He proposed the disciplinary framework of translation studies, in which he described one of the three major branches of translation studies -- translation process studies, which can be regarded as the embryonic form of cognitive translatology (Wen Xu 2018). In 2010, Muoz (2010) proposed the term cognitive translatology to cover all translation studies from a cognitive perspective.The study of the cognitive process of translation mainly focuses on how the brain works during the translation process, as well as the internal and external factors that affect the operation of the brain. According to Yan Linhai (2008) the main content of cognitive translation research is the information processing mode, processing strategy and processing unit adopted by the translator in the translation process. Lu Weizhong Wang Fuxiang (2013) considers that translation ability and its acquisition, translation expertise and the translator's cognitive efforts are also important contents. Wen Xu (2018) believes that there are three main areas in cognitive translatology: translation studies from the perspective of language cognition, translation cognitive process and translation studies from the perspective of social cognition.3.2 Conceptual Blending Theory3.2.1 The definition of conceptual blending Conceptual blending theory is one of the important theories in the field of cognitive linguistics, which plays a universal guiding role in the construction and understanding of meaning. The conceptual blending in this theory refers to the blending of psychological space. Psychological space refers to the conceptual packet that people construct for the purpose of partial understanding and action when they talk and think (Fauconnier Turner 1996: 113). 3.2.2 The network of conceptual blending The so-called conceptual blending theory is a systematic exposition of the mutual mapping and interaction of various mental spaces in the process of verbal communication. Its aim is to reveal the cognitive iceberg behind the online construction of verbal meaning (Wang Wenbin 2004).Conceptual blending theory holds that the most basic conceptual integration network pattern is a network composed of four spaces: two input spaces, a blended space, and a generic space. The common structure of the two input spaces and the abstract information they share are projected into the third space - the generic space. At the same time, on the basis of these two input spaces, the cross-space part is reflected, matched and selectively projected into the fourth space -- blended space. The blended space extracts part of the structure from two input spaces, and creates the emergent structure. In this way, these four spaces are connected with each other through a projection chain, forming a conceptual integration network (Fang Hongmei Yan Shiqing 2004). Fauconnier Turner point out that cognitive operation is mainly carried out in the emergent structure of the blended space. The emergent structure is a new structure that is not found in other spaces. It is the core part of conceptual integration and the structure to form new concepts.3.2.3 Three cognitive processes in the blended spaceThere are three kinds of integration in the creation structure of the blended space: composition, completion and elaboration (Fauconnier Turner 1998, 2002). Composition is the simplest of the three processes, projecting two or more input spaces together and forming new relationships between input spaces that did not previously exist. Completion, or pattern completion, makes the activated pattern constantly perfect in the blended space with the help of background schema knowledge, cognition and cultural patterns. Elaboration means that the structure in the blended space can be elaborated, which is the so-called running the blend: it carries out cognitive operation in the blended space according to its own emergent logic, and peoples imagination can expand the details infinitely according to the emergent structure.3.2.4 Four sub-type networks of conceptual blendingGenerally speaking, there are four types of conceptual blending networks: simplex network, mirror network, single-scope network and double-scope network.Simple network is also named as single-framing network. This is the simplest concept of an integration network, in which there are four conceptual spaces: input space I, input space II, a generic space and a blended space. One of the two input spaces contains an abstract empty frame, while the other input space has no frame but filling components.Mirror network is also named as frame network in which conceptual integration is a little more complicated. It has two input spaces, a generic space and a blended space, and all the spaces share the same organizing frame.Single-scope network is also known as one-sides network which is more complex than previous two networks. It also includes four conceptual spaces in which the two input spaces contain two different organizing frames and only one of them is projected to form the blend. This type of projection is asymmetric. The input that provides the organizing frame to the blended space is the framing input, while the input that is the focus of understanding of the network is the focus input (Fauconnier Turner 2002: 127). Double-scope network is also named as two-sided network which the most complex among these networks. The two input spaces have different frames, but both frames can be projected into the integration space at the same time. This kind of conceptual integration network is creative so that between the two input spaces there usually exists clashes.ReferencesClark, H. H.， Gerrig, J. R. (1984). On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of experimental psychology, 113(1).Fauconnier, G. E. Sweetser (eds.) (1996). Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Fauconnier, G. M. Turner (1998). Conceptual Integration Network. Cognitive Science, 22(2): 133-187. Fauconnier, G. M. Turner (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind' s Hidden Complexities. New York:Basic Books.Gibbs, R. and Jennifer OBrien. (1991). Psychological aspects of irony understanding. Journal of Pragmatics (16) : 523-530.Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics (3): 41-58.Holdcroft, D. (1983). Irony as trope, and irony as discourse. Poetics Today, 4(3): 493-511.Lakoff, G. Mark J. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Simpson, J. A. E. Weiner. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. Vol.8: Interval Looie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Julia, L. (2009). The real story of ah-Q and other tales of China: The complete fiction of Lu Xun. London: Penguin Group.Mateo, M. (1995). The translation of irony. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators Journal, 40(1), 171-178.Muecke, D. C. (1970). Irony. London: Methuen.Muoz Martn, Ricardo. (2010). On paradigms and cognitive translatology. In Shreve, G. M. 认知翻译学研究综述，《外语教学与研究》，45（4）：606-616。

鲁迅（1972），《狂人日记》（Selected stories of Lu Hsun), 杨宪益、戴乃迭译。

北京：外文出版社。

王文斌（2004），概念合成理论研究与应用的回顾与思考，《外语研究》，83（1）：6-12。

王寅（2014），认知翻译研究:理论与方法，《外语与外语教学》，2：1-8。

文旭（2004），《反讽话语的认知语用研究》。

北京: 中国社会科学出版社。

文旭（2018），认知翻译学:翻译研究的新范式，《英语研究》，2：103-113。

颜林海（2008），《翻译认知心理学》。

剩余内容已隐藏，您需要先支付 10元 才能查看该篇文章全部内容！立即支付

以上是毕业论文文献综述，课题毕业论文、任务书、外文翻译、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。

您可能感兴趣的文章