Advertisement

Neohelicon

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 261–283 | Cite as

Translating foregrounding in literary and non-literary texts, foregrounding translator’s conscious and unconscious thought

  • Susan Yun XuEmail author
Article
  • 149 Downloads

Abstract

Foregrounding, the linguistic deviation and novelty, is endowed with literary-aesthetic value which is closely associated with “literariness.” My project offers a renewed attempt to enquire into literariness in a spectrum of text types ranging from academic discourse and newspaper articles to fiction and poetry by investigating foregrounding practices in both literary and non-literary texts. Through a comparative foregrounding analysis of the translations of the four selected text types and their respective source texts, I focus on whether the foregrounding practice is retained, altered or removed in the translated texts. The analysis has identified significant stylistic differences between the source texts and their translations, which enable me to reconstruct the translator’s conscious and unconscious thought in making decisions with regard to foregrounding. My investigation shows that the translator has a varied degree of awareness of foregrounding depending on the text types. The findings highlight the needs for both translators and translation scholars to be aware of the foregrounding practice in literary and non-literary texts. For translators, such an awareness helps enhance their professional reliability; for the translation scholars, it broadens their horizons in translation process research.

Keywords

Foregrounding Literariness Style Translation Conscious thought Unconscious thought 

References

  1. Baker, M. (2000). Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 12(2), 241–266.  https://doi.org/10.1075/target.12.2.04bak.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M. (2006). Translation and conflict: A narrative account. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandele-Thomas, B. (1991). The man who came in from the back of beyond. London: Bellew.Google Scholar
  4. Bargh, J. A., & Morsella, E. (2008). The unconscious mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation studies. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Boase-Beier, J. (2006). Stylistic approaches to translation. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Boase-Beier, J. (2011). A critical introduction to translation studies. London and New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Boase-Beier, J. (2015). Translating the poetry of the holocaust: Translation, style and the reader. London and New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Bosseaux, C. (2007). How does it feel? Point of view in translation: The case of Virginia Woolf into French. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter, R., & Nash, W. (1983). Language and literariness. Prose Studies: History, Theory and Criticism, 6(2), 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, R., & Nash, W. (1990). Seeing through language: A guide to styles of English writing. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Erlich, V. (1981). Russian formalism: History-doctrine (3rd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Etkind, E., & Faigel, M. (1967). Comparative stylistics: A guide to the art of translation. Diogenes, 15(57), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fowler, R. (1996). Linguistic criticism (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gallagher, S.M. (1998). Letters to the editor: Irish in schools. The Irish Times. 24 September: 15.Google Scholar
  16. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  17. Hermans, T. (1996). The translator’s voice in translated narrative. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 8(1), 23–48.Google Scholar
  18. Holmes, J. S., Lambert, J., & van den Broeck, R. (Eds.). (1978). Literature and translation: New perspectives in literary studies: With a basic bibliography of books on translation studies. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
  19. House, J. (2013). Towards a new linguistic-cognitive orientation in translation studies. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 25(1), 46–60.  https://doi.org/10.1075/target.24.1.05hou.Google Scholar
  20. Huang, L., & Chu, C. (2014). Translator’s style or translational style? A corpus-based study of style in translated Chinese novels. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies, 1(2), 122–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jakobsen, A. L. (2014). The development and current state of translation process research. In E. Brems, et al. (Eds.), The known unknowns of translation studies (pp. 65–88). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Jeffries, L., & McIntyre, D. (2010). Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leech, G. N. (2008). Language in literature: Style and foregrounding. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Leech, G. N., & Short, M. (2007). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  25. Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, rewriting, and the manipulation of literary fame. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Leslie, A. (1998). Patriotism without prejudice. The Times of London. 30 May 1998: 22.Google Scholar
  27. Maher, B. (2011). Recreation and style: Translating humorous literature in Italian and English. Amsterdam and Philadephia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, Don. (1999). What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. Discourse Processes, 28(2), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Millán-Varela, C. (2004). Hearing voices: James Joyce, narrative voice and minority translation. Language and Literature, 13(1), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Munday, J. (2008). Style and ideology in translation: Latin American writing in English. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Munday, J. (2012). Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision-making. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill Archive.Google Scholar
  34. Olohan, M. (2004). Introducing corpora in translation studies. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Redding, P. (2010). Whitman unbound: Democracy and poetic form, 1912–1931. New Literary History, 41(3), 669–690.Google Scholar
  36. Reiss, K. (1981). Type, kind and individuality of text: decision making in translation. Poetics Today, 2(4), 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reiss, K. (1989). Text types, translation types and translation assessment. In A. Chesterman (Ed.), Readings in translation theory (pp. 105–115). Helsinki: Finn Lectura.Google Scholar
  38. Short, M. (1996). Exploring the language of poems, plays and prose (pp. 10–16). London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  39. Shreve, G. M., & Angelone, E. (Eds.). (2010). Translation and cognition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. Simpson, P. (2004). Stylistics: A resource book for students (Vol. 26, pp. 50–53). London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Snell-Hornby, M. (1995). Translation studies: An integrated approach (Revised ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  42. Talib, I. S. (2002). The language of postcolonial literatures: An introduction. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Talib, I. S. (2011). 后殖民文学的语言 [Hou Zhi Min Wen Xue De Yu Yan, The language of postcolonial literatures] (Trans. Li, Khin-huan, 2011). Taipei: Bookman.Google Scholar
  44. Toolan, M. (1998). Language in literature. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  45. Toury, G. (1981). Translated literature: System, norm, performance: Toward a TT-oriented approach to literary translation. Poetics Today, 2(4), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Traugott, E. C., & Pratt, M. L. (2008). Language, linguistics and literary analysis. In R. Carter & P. Stockwell (Eds.), The language and literature reader (pp. 44–46). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Tymoczko, M. (1999). Post-colonial writing and literary translation. In B. Bassnet & H. Trivedi (Eds.), Post-colonial translation: Theory and practice (pp. 19–40). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Van Peer, W. (2007). Introduction to foregrounding: A state of the art. Language and Literature 16, 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Peer, W. (2008). But what is literature? Toward a descriptive definition of literature. In R. Carter & P. Stockwell (Eds.), The language and literature reader (pp. 118–126). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Venuti, L. (2008). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Venuti, L. (2013). Translation changes everything: Theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Verdonk, P. (2002). Stylistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Whitman, W. (1855/1982). Leaves of grass. In Complete poetry and collected prose. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  55. Whitman, W. (1891–1892). 草叶集 [Leaves of Grass] (Trans. Zhao L., 1991). Beijing: Beijing People’s Literature Publishing;  Shanghai Translation Publishing House; (Trans. Xu H., 2004). Harbin: Harbin Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Xu, Y. S. (2017). Translation of autobiography: Narrating self, translating the other. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Singapore University of Social SciencesSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations