Abstract
Translation semiotics studies the transformation of signs in translation, which generally involves semiosis, sign behavior, sign relations, semiotic hierarchy, intersemiosis, semiotic function, and semiotic conservation. This paper attempts to explore, from these seven dimensions, the disciplinary essence of TS and foresees the development of this burgeoning discipline as a branch of semiotics.
About the authors
Mingyu Wang (b. 1958) is a professor at Tianjin Foreign Studies University. His research interests include linguistic semiotics, general linguistics, functional linguistics, and foreign language pedagogy. His publications include “Linguistic semiotics” (2004), “New foreign language pedagogy” (2008), “Modern linguistic semiotics” (2013), and “Toward the meaning of linguistic signs: A hierarchical theory” (2016).
Jing Li (b. 1964) is a professor at Tianjin Foreign Studies University. Her research interests include translation studies, applied linguistics, and comparative literature. Her publications include “A survey of China’s translation activities during 1966–1976” (2008), “Ideological manipulation on China’s translation activities throughout the 20th century” (2008), “A comparative study of two English versions of San Zi Jing” (2014), and “Translation, literary classics and the system of Chinese discourse: An interview” (2015).
Acknowledgement
While translation semiotics is still rarely studied in China, Dr. Jia Hongwei from the Capital Normal University has received attention from the academic community for his achievements in this field in recent years. Some of his thoughts and suggestions have been incorporated into this article, and we hereby would like to acknowledge his generous help to us.
References
Barkhudarov, Leonid S. 1975. Language and translation Moscow: International Relations Press.Search in Google Scholar
Boase-Beier, Jean. 2011. A critical introduction to translation studies New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1990. The theory of language: The representational function of language Translated by Donald Fraser. Goodwin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/fos.25Search in Google Scholar
Creswell, Max. 2016. Carnap’s modal predicate logic. In Max Cresswell, Edwin Mares & Adriane Rini (eds.), Logical modalities from Aristotle to Carnap: The story of necessity Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139939553Search in Google Scholar
Escarpit, Robert. 1958. Sociologie de la littérature Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Search in Google Scholar
Fiske, John. 2008. Introduction to communication studies Translated by Jing Xu. Beijing: Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. 1969. Linguistic function and literary style: An inquiry into the language of William Golding’s ‘The Inheritors.’ In Jean Jacques Weber (ed.), The stylistics reader: From Roman Jakobson to the present, 56–91. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 2001. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1969. Prolegomena to a theory of language Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas Sebeok, Style in language 53–56. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2013. Umwelt and modeling. In P. Cobley (ed.), The Routledge companion to semiotics translated by Jinsong Zhou & Yiheng Zhao, 46–61. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kull, Kalevi. 2014. Advancements in biosemiotics: Where we are now in discovering the basic mechanisms of meaning-making. In Kalevi Kull & Magnus Riin (eds.), Semiotics of life: Approaches from Tartu translated by Jia Peng & Li Tang, 61–70. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press．Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2008. Language in literature: Style and foregrounding New York: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Juri. 1977. On the dynamics of culture. Sign Systems Studies 2(3). 355–370.10.1007/978-3-030-14710-5_7Search in Google Scholar
Lv, Hongzhou & Hong Shan. 2014. A study of the intersign essence of metaphor. Foreign Language and Literature 2. 75－79．Search in Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. 1989. Signs, language and behavior Translated by Lan Luo & Yi Zhou. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House.Search in Google Scholar
Mukarovsky, Jan. 1964. Standard language and poetic language In Paul L. Garvin (ed.), A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure and style. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 2014. Peirce on signs: Writings on semiotic Translated by Xingzhi Zhao. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1980 [1916]. Course in General Linguistics Translated by Mingkai Gao. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar
Torop, Peeter. 2014. Semiosphere and/as the research object of semiotics of culture. In Kalevi Kull & Magnus Riin (eds.), Semiotics of life: Approaches from Tartu, translated by Jia Peng & Li Tang, 31–40. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 2000 [1999]. Understanding pragmatics Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Mingyu. 2004. Linguistic semiotics Beijing: Higher Education Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Mingyu, Yong Chen, Hua Jin & Hongzhou Lü. 2013. Modern linguistic semiotics Beijing: The Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1998. Methodology of social sciences Translated by Shuifa Han & Qian Mo. Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press.Search in Google Scholar
Zhao, Yiheng. 2010. “Accompanying text” — A means of extending the “intertextuality.” Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art 2. 2–8.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
