The Ethics of Literary Communication - Genuineness, directness, indirectness
The Ethics of Literary Communication - Genuineness, directness, indirectness
复制标题
文学传播的伦理——真实性、直接性、间接性
DOI：
10.1075/ds.19.14sie
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Siebers J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Siebers J
有一种很有影响力的交际观认为，交际是一个无休止的对话或语用解释的过程：在意义的不确定性中，视界的融合或行为的语用协调。我们在解释学传统和英美语言哲学中都能找到这种观点的支持。从这个角度看，沟通是一种解释;我们永远不知道对方真正的意思是什么，甚至不知道感觉的界限是什么。与此同时，我们也不能走出交往行动的范围;为了在我们的话语中建立语义的稳定性或可重复性，我们不可能占据阿基米德点。我认为，这些见解虽然有效，但必须辅之以一种分析，这种分析表明，所有的沟通，确切地说，作为解释的冲突，都是朝着一个绝对的方向：朝着一个乌托邦式的意义视野，也许让人想起沃尔特·本雅明（1969：82）所说的“纯语言”，没有这种语言，沟通就不可能发生。既然如此，这意味着将文学视为一种交流形式的交流批评家，不可避免地要对这种乌托邦式的交流视野包含在文学中的方式发表一些意见。Benjamin（同上）他说，译者的任务是“在自己的语言中释放出被另一种语言所迷惑的纯粹语言，在他对作品的再创造中释放出被囚禁在作品中的语言”。它的任务是无限地接近意义的水晶核心，通过将文本翻译成另一种语言来剥离，以便说“相同”，只有当它被否定时才变得可见。本章的研究任务是由AHRC资助AH/J 006637/1完成的。
An influential view of communication, for which we find support in the hermeneutical tradition as much as in Anglo-American philosophy of language, holds that communication is an endless process of dialogical, or pragmatic interpretation: a fusion of horizons or the pragmatic coordination of behaviour amid the indeterminacy of meaning. Seen this way, communication is a matter of interpretation; we never know what the other person really means, or even what the boundaries of sense are. At the same time we cannot step outside of communicative action; there is no Archimedean point which we can occupy in order to install semantic stability or iterability within our discourses. I think these insights, valid as they are, have to be complemented by an analysis that shows that all communication, precisely as a clash of interpretations, is oriented towards an absolute: towards a utopian horizon of significance, perhaps reminiscent of what Walter Benjamin (1969: 82) called “pure language”, without which communication cannot occur. Such being the case, it means that communicational critics, who view literature as a form of communication, inevitably have something to say about the way this utopian horizon of communication is contained within literature. Benjamin (ibid.) said that the task of the translator is “to release in his own language that pure language that is under the spell of another, to liberate the language imprisoned in a work in his re-creation of that work”. is task is that of an endless approximation to a crystalline core of meaning, a stripping-away by rendering a text into another language in order to say ‘the same’, something that becomes visible only as it were ex negativo. e task of the* e research for this chapter was made possible by AHRC grant AH/J006637/1.