The monism—dualism argument in stylistics and translation.doc

1、1The monismdualism argument in stylistics and translationAbstract. A core issue in stylistic research is the relationship between form （style） and content， which belongs to the scope of philosophy and can be traced back to the period of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. In recent stylistic research，

2、there are generally three arguments： monism， dualism and polyphyletism. Based on the monism-dualism argument mainly， a possible consensus can be reached by interoperating the relationship of form and content into a dual connotation of content-form and thought-language， and during the interaction of

3、the monism-dualism argument with some deconstructing theories in modern translation， whose further relationship with translation can be traced and analyzed. Key words： stylistics； monism-dualism argument； translation. 1 Introduction There is a saying nowadays that the history of humane civilization

4、is the intersected history of multilateral translations. As a certain way of deconstruction， modern 2translation， especially the modern translators incline to reconstruct text against text， namely with the wine in others cups to water and fulfill oneself. In fact， stylistics is equally ambitious as

5、translation. Translation emphasizes on thoughts carried by words while stylistics emphasizes on words directly， and typical is the Shipize-Woshiluo represented German stylistic school， which is influenced by Croces aesthetic theory， attempts to interpret a nations spirit and psychology through styli

6、stic research， aiming at connecting stylistics to the history of literature， art， even that of culture. 2 The Monism-Dualism Argument In Stylistics A core issue in stylistic research is the relationship between form （style） and content. Some addressed as monists hold that form and content cannot be

7、divided； some prefer that though closely attached， form and content are still separable， who are named dualists. Besides there is the deconstructionists as the third party who， from the perspective of various functions of language， think that any simple remark can be deconstructed into different mea

8、nings at the same time and hold the opinion of pluralism. Of my view， form and content is certainly inseparable， 3once formed of the content， form accompanies with， what seems divisible is only some superficial linguistic fragments， such as the simple remarks that can be repeated in daily life， or t

9、he mere comprehension and reproducing of some concepts. For example， the image of “leaf” is not related too much to whether it is represented visually or vocally， while those delicate thinking and sincere articles radiated from “leaf “ mean only one proper form to one theme. This phenomenon is simil

10、ar to that in translation： the simple language transformation has made the original meaning subtle， so different form， different perception， no matter how tiny is the difference. Thus， perhaps we can first analyze the relationship between thought and language to enlighten ourselves： thought can be e

11、xternalized and also can reside itself in minds， when thought exists in mind recessively， thought and language is separable； when thought is expressed dominantly， the relationship between thought and language accordingly changes into that of content and form， and is inseparable. 2.1 Form And Content

12、 Writing is to give ideas， whose form or style must correspond with the intended thought and serve the thought， which Aristotle favors and further considers that form and 4content are inseparable. David Lodge also thinks literary works unexplainable，even impossible to translate. Of course， to many p

13、eople， a consensus is hard to reach and all is in conflict. The contemporary Britain writer Arnold Bennett expressed in The literary interests： “Style cant be divided from matter， when a writer establishes a thought， he forms it by a language， that form of the language constructs his style， and the

14、style is completely obedient to the thought. Thought exists itself only in language， and only in a single form of the language how much meaning a thought bears is based on how much meaning it is expressed； only when thought is expressed does it exist， instead of existing before the expression. Thoug

15、ht expresses itself. Clear thought expresses itself clearly， vague thought expresses itself vaguely.” This statement， while enlightening others， blurred itself simultaneously. “when a writer establishes a thought， he forms it by a language”， the establishing of thought doesnt absolutely depend on wo

16、rds， I think the “thought” here should refer to explicit and dominant thought， which means the thought has turned into content by linguistic embodiment， and thus “Style cant be divided from matter”. Besides， since “thought 5expresses itself”， thought should be free， why again “thought exists itself

17、only in language”？ Must thought rely on language？ What is the relationship between thought and language？ 2.2 Thought And Language As book transmits thought， language carries thought also. Lu xuns literary career enabled “A drop of ink makes a million think”. So， perfect combination of thought and la

18、nguage， or otherwise perfect combination of content and form can produce incomparable spiritual power. Language cant drift away from thought （or it will become meaningless codes） ， but thought is not absolutely inseparable from language. To understand this point， we must bear in mind that thought an

19、d content are not equal though sometimes they overlap each other. Thought can be shown as content by the aid of language while content is not always qualified to become thought； thought can be recessive， but content is certainly dominant， public and for everyone to know （except private diaries）. A p

20、hilosophy expressed is a thought， a philosophy unexpressed is also a thought， and so is wise silence， is telepathythey are free from language， even free from establishing in words， but they are thoughts， perhaps 6belonging to the deepest， the most concentrated thoughts like the philosophical high mo

21、untains and deep rivers The famous deconstructionist Derrida emphasizes that translation is for tracing something intangible but existing in real， whose idea is original and can be adapted to the analysis of thought. Thought may be just a brainwave or a sudden inspiration， similar to unconsciousness

22、， but it exists， perhaps immature， but perhaps incomparable and unique nevertheless it so easily flees like relics in water that once expressed or exposed to sunshine， its original meaning or the most magnificent parts will fall to pieces， with only an approximate content left. Therefore， when thoug

23、ht classifies itself “recessive thought” it is independent of language； when thought becomes “dominant thought”， thought turns into content， form and content are destined monophonic as close as flesh and blood. Very rarely does one find clear thoughts clothed in unclear language， more often does one

24、 find unclear thoughts expressed clearly， and such a style or form is clearly unclear. Thus real thoughts should be the “recessive thoughts”， which mean the most original spark， the most precious mental earthquake and mean transcending experience. So real thinkers perhaps are the thinkers with no wo

25、rds instead of those respectable 7philosophers or scholars， who belong to the second-rate. Simultaneously， though it is often said that only the “dominant thought” can be acknowledged and significant to others， I still prefer that real thoughts serve oneself： for self-shaping and self-guiding. So， t

26、he essence of thought is in mind， written materials are just second hand. As a result， thought is not necessarily in want of stylistics or languages as overdress， “dominant thought” is thought in clothes， which is wrapped and functionalized， while “recessive thought” is thought itself， independent a

27、nd free enough to walk everywhere without clothes. 3 About Language Itself It is well known that stylistic analysis is about researching language and analyzing linguistic phenomena while translation is for reproducing thoughts behind language， so language research is vital to both stylistics and tra

28、nslation. Meanwhile， human thoughts have always been elusive and subtle， but as a vital thought-carrying tool， language is inevitably slippery， uncertain and self-betraying， therefore， when language makes itself an authority， also a limit to itself. Languages function is to express， but compared wit

29、h the 8profundity of thoughts， language is sometimes incompetent； also because of certain factors such as context， cultural background or instinctive elements， language is sometimes unnecessary， even in certain cultures， language is purposely resisted. For example， suggestiveness， instead of articul

30、ateness， is the ideal of all Chinese art， whether it be poetry， painting， or anything else， which is not without its philosophical background. In the twenty-six chapter of the Chuang-tzu it is said： “A basket-trap is for catching fish， but when one has got the fish， one need think no more about the

31、basket. A foot-trap is for catching hares； but when one has got the hare， one need think no more about the trap. Words are for holding ideas， but when one has got the idea， one need no longer think about the words. If only I could find someone who had stopped thinking about words and could have him

32、with me to talk to！” To talk with someone who had stopped thinking about words is not to talk with words. In the Chuang-tzu the statement is made that two sages met without speaking a single word， because “when their eyes met， the Tao was there.”According to Taoism， the Tao （the way） cannot be told，

33、 but only suggested. So when words are used， it is the suggestiveness of the words， and not their fixed denotations 9or connotations， that reveals the Tao. Words are something that should be forgotten when they have achieved their purpose. Why should we trouble ourselves with them any more than is n

34、ecessary？ This is true of the words and rhymes in poetry， and the lines and colors in painting. As to translation， what it faces most directly is language； language is both the basis of translation and a barrier to translation， so how to deal with language and how to re-express thoughts held by ling

35、uistic words are the most challenging tasks for translation. Opposite to the Chinese sages， western deconstructionists praise language highly， considering that language can surpass thoughts， can break through context， occasion and shows itself a pure language. Derrida thinks God resides in language

36、and translation is the will of God， for it is God who threw languages into confusion， so mankind is destined to translate without stopDerridas concept elevates language ultimate of the world， which I consider overreaching， and at any time language is neither sublime nor unnecessary， to thought， lang

37、uage should always take the back seat. 4 The Monism-Dualism Argument In Stylistics And Translation Arguments of the relationship between form and content have 10long existed in academic field； in fact， the two aspects supplement each other and whose respective research is only for deepening themselv

38、es individually. Now dualism seems prevail in the circle， even appears such an opinion that no acknowledgement of dualism means no necessity of stylistics and translation. Stylistics and translations are certainly necessary， but the dualism of form and content here is not necessarily irrefutable， ju

39、st as granted by Turner the dualist： “Grammar sometimes permits the seemingly free choice of word order， and permits changing a basic linguistic form into several corresponding forms. Of all these cases， tiny differences in focal points or slight changes in meaning will arise， and it is impossible t

40、o demand absolute sameness during the course of stylistics changes.” Hence， theoretically form changes， content varies with and vice versa， so it is monism of form and content. Henry Widdowson affirmed that “The meaning of stylistics lies in offering learners a study method to connect their appreciation of a literary work with their perception of language， and therefore further their feelings.” （Widdowson， Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature） Whose opinion indicates that stylistics is not indispensable nor almighty， only “further their feelings”.