In:
Semiotica, Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Vol. 2019, No. 231 ( 2019-11-26), p. 121-145
Abstract:
Due to the logical problems of unclear boundaries, staggered parallels, disordered standard, etc., existing in Jakobson’s intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic translations, the first triadic division of translation in terms of semiotics has been criticized since the 1980s. However, most of the previous semiotic research in China and the world at large still stays on the interlingual translation (in the narrow sense) of literary texts, neglecting semiotic transformations as a sign activity and semiosis between tangible signs and intangible ones in the same and/or different period(s) of time, within the same ethnic culture or across the distinctive ethnic cultures. Hereby, it is necessary to refer to and redefine the term “semiosphere” introduced by Yuri Lotman in 1984 and the literatures after, to revise intrasemiospheric translation, intersemiospheric translation, and suprasemiospheric translation introduced in Jia(2016b. A translation-semiotic perspective of Jakobson’s tripartite of translation. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages 5. 11–18; Jia 2017. Roman Jakobson’s triadic division of translation revisited. Chinese Semiotics Studies 13(1). 31–46), and to elaborate on their nature, structure, content, and connotative significance. This is not only conducive to building translation semiotics as a subfield of general semiotics, but also to broadening the theoretical visions of applied semiotics and translation studies, and verifying the theoretical validity of general semiotics and translation semiotics in interpreting and explaining the semiotic transformations in translation as a special sign activity.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1613-3692
,
0037-1998
DOI:
10.1515/sem-2017-0151
Language:
English
Publisher:
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Publication Date:
2019
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2044265-8
SSG:
7,11
Permalink
