FROM TRANSLATION TO SEMIOTRANSLATION
University of Houston, USA
gorlee@xs4all.nl
Abstract
In the first part, From interpreted signs to interpretated signs, the mechanism of translation makes logical and nonlogical connections between the linguistic sign and object of the source text. While the Saussurean two-step skill of translation restates in logical language the source text into the target text, the concept of semiotranslation supplements Saussure’s sign-internal strategy into Peirce’s sign-external interpretant-signs. The interpretants guarantee the logical and nonlogical forms of semiotranslation. The “genuine” effects of three-way semiosis involves “good”, “bad”, and “in-between” translations made by the translator. The semiotic signature of the translator implies the emotional, energetic, and logical nature of source and target. In the second part, From intersemiosis to trans-semiosis, Jakobson’s three types of intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic translation continue Peirce’s interpretative semiotranslation in the linguistic semiosis, extralinguistic intersemiosis, and artistic trans-semiosis. Semiotranslation forms goal-directed habits, but without fixed results, no fixed methods, no fixed redefinitions, and no fixed agents. All translational results, methods, and agents are tentative, provisional, and temporary attempts to make skeptical versions of translation.
Translation can be defined as the ideal goal to recreate the perfect one-way replacement of textual material of the source text in one language by equivalent textual material in another language. The recreation into a different language is made by a human agent (translator) to adapt (reimagine, refashion, reconstruct, rebuild) the thematic, spatio-temporal, and conceptual fabric of the source text into the different language of the target text. ). In this working definition, imagine the original Hebrew and Greek Bible translated into a thousand languages as the original ideal of Christianity, giving a sacred form to later translation studies, to give rise to contemporary translation studies and translation criticism. Further, consider the forms of translation today: technical instructions from Swedish into French, a legal agreement translated from Arabic to Dutch, an English love letter intended for a Chinese lover, Shakespeare’s sonnets translated into Spanish, the arias of an Italian opera translated into singable modern English, and so forth.
The process of translating and translation (process and product) seems to start as the first translatability, imagined as the romantically-inspired unity of the translator’s ego, to produce the first original in the “semiotic signatures” of the translator (Gorlée 2012: 4 and passim). Then, the translator must highlight the cultural contexts of the message or text, including them as language-and-cultural equivalence in the “linguïcultural” break between source and target languages (Anderson and Gorlée 2011: 222-226). Language and culture must be brought together in the whole version of the translation.
The external agents (readers, critic) must be acutely aware that the translator’s mind and heart are basically subjective conjectures of guessing right or wrong. The hypothesis of translation is almost a paradox of language and culture. The translator’s reasoning is and remains the obscure imagination of his brain by means of association and combination of the mental abilities. But the mind depends in part on the good or bad circumstances of the practitioner’s nature and environment of the activity (here, making the translation). The dubious scholarly pleasure of the subjective and objective efforts of translation stresses that both theoretical and practical questions have a profound effect on the ideal to create the perfect equivalence between source and target texts.
The conventional view of the semiotic perspective is the dual approach of translation of sign and object. This view has tended to predominate in the structural tradition to the positive and creative différance to the teaching of foreign-language “skill” of applied linguistics. The ready availability of the convenient and comprehensive theory of translation studies explained the systematic methodology of contrastive analysis, studying two languages in contrast to identify general and specific differences between source and target language. The contrastive approach of the semiotic sign and object encourages the systematic use of formal constraints in the skill of translation, see the textbook of Vinay and Darbelnet’s Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais (1958: 28-31, 1995: 12-15). The “old” manual of stylistics is the groundwork for translators, it has educated many trainee translators and is even today popular in the curricula of schools of translation. Almost 40 years after its publication, Vinay and Darbelnet’s textbook has been translated into English under the title Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Method for Translation (1995), suited for new use beyond the French-speaking countries. This structuralist type of “methodology for translation” remains a standard procedure today, see Venuti’s manual of translation studies, The Translation Studies Reader (2004: 128-137).
Viewed in the terms of structuralist linguistics, Vinay and Darbelnet’s “methodology for translation” was based on the duality of contrastive terms derived from Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics (1949; see Vinay and Darbelnet 1958: 28-35, 1995: 12-19). Saussure’s language theory deals in translation with the contrast between two terms: signifier and signified (signans and signatum), langue and parole, denotation and connotation, matter and form, sound and meaning, synchrony and diachrony. The language theory about the double process of translation agrees with Saussure’s system of contrastive terms, and works in teaching the practical activities of translation. The modalities of self-thought in educating sign and object of translation has become the handy tool to activate the professional skill of trainee translators.
The division of the dual organization of Vinay and Darbelnet did not reckon with the reasonable assumption that the translation tends to produce a number of “good,” “bad,” and “in-between” variations or versions of translation. The form and substance aspects of signs were already present in Hjelmslev’s expression and content, form and substance, Pike’s emic and etic problems, and Jakobson’s code and message, selection and combination, metaphor and metonymy, whole and details, and other terms. The combinatorial relations of “in-between” versions is the confusion of “good” and “bad,” in the analysis of contextual parameters of the changeable nature of translation. The “in-between” mode of translation blurs the dual outline of Saussure, but will be clarified in the syntactical, semantic, and pragmatic elements (Morris 1946: 217-220), following Peirce’s interpretants added to Saussure’s sign and object.
The dual equivalence of the fixed ways of source text to the target text governs Catford’s definition of translation as the “replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL)” (1980 [1965]: 20). Catford’s transparent and critical grammar in A Linguistic Theory of Translation includes issues like lexicography, graphological translation, transliteration, translation shifts, and the limits of translatability. While Catford’s linguistic models and samples of translation are contrastive techniques, relating to linguistic devices, the technique of the transfer of languages within Catford’s contrastive analysis – including Vinay and Darbelnet’s classic taxonomy – does not really consider the changeable nature of language interweaving with socio-cultural elements of linguïculture to form a significant whole of source and target pragmatics. The role of translation not only incorporates a contrastive taxonomy of dealing with sign and object in two languages, but also creates a communicative act between language and culture joining the lingüícultural source and text together into one target text through the unspoken concept of Peirce’s interpretant.
Instead of the various techniques of using the contrast between two languages as such, the clear purpose of translation needs to follow a theory – starting with the naïve pseudo-theory of the translator’s first translatability – on the relevance of a pragmatic action standing for the metalinguistic problems of the jigsaw of languages and cultures. This possibility of the argument of metalanguage in translation is more than a mistaken belief of practical experiences, but concerns the methodology of goal-directed semiosis of the linguïcultural competence “built into” the translator’s knowledge, experience, or intuition (Anderson and Gorlée 2011). Thus the possible equivalence points to Peirce’s model of the translator’s vision (firstness), memory (secondness), and experience (thirdness) to rebuild the total equivalence of the target message. Semiosis is the interaction of sign, object, and Peirce’s interpretant, which integrates the cultural refinements of the cultural system into source and target narratives.
Three points are in order to generate semiotranslation. First, the translator’s multilayered frame of mind does not experience the symmetrical mechanism of Saussure’s structural linguistics, uniting source and target into one linguistic sign (the translation). Saussure’s sign is reducible to the fixed, sign-internal interaction and mutual dependency between the sign’s material side (signifier) and the object (signified) (Gorlée 2004: 55). However, translation has no fixation of unifying signifier and signified, but seems to hide the ambiguity of the co-authorship by the primary author and the secondary translator from the anonymous readership. In translatology, the translator can be regarded as a sign-external kind of pseudo-author, and even the readers can create their own pseudo-image of the target message.
The sign-external translator detaches himself or herself from the parts of the linguistic details of the source material – Peirce’s words, sentences, fragments – to make the own choices of questions in the target material. When offering a choice in the transposition from source to target, the active terminology is Peirce’s interpretant, quasi-interpreter, and ground, coined to counteract the signs of transference and to balance some degree of alienation between source and target. The both linguistic and extralinguistic revolution makes the experience of composing translation not merely the technical skill of expertly executing a transplantation of one language to the next, but creates the artistic and aesthetic adventure of handling more than the native autonomous language embedding and translating (or “translating”) language into other sign systems.
The second type is the fixed change of the sign-environment of translation, which derives from the comparative stylistics of structural linguistics. Based on Saussure’s duality of sign and object, the stylistics of Vinay and Darbelnet and others manipulates the statistical rules of parts of speech and the techniques of literary genre (1958 : 15, 32–35, 102–115, 116–151, 1995: 15–19, 99–114, 115–163). Unfortunately, the term stylistics has, as Toury states, “been deemed translational”, although the “theoretical and methodological frameworks within which it was handled could not, if only because their interests lacked the wish to fully account for all that translation may, and does involve” (Toury 1995: 3). Stylistics comes from outside translation, but stylistics adds translational norms and values for the writer and translator. This focuses the attention on the almost paradoxical situation of translation. The source and target milieu of translation is never a fixed norm but an open and unique environment for all kinds of stylistic and linguistic changes, isolated from the domination of social, political, and religious stylistics into personal stories. The predominance of stylistics is under pressure especially “in periods and countries where several linguistic conventions are struggling for domination [and] the uses, attitudes, and allegiances … may be important nor only for the development of the linguistic system but for an understanding of his own art” (Wellek and Warren 1963 [1949]: 174).
Thus the concept of stylistics has been reworded, reinterpreted, amplified, condensed, parodied, and commented by Vinay and Darbelnet’s examples into a variety of linguistic devices, such as overtranslation, calque, modulation, comparison, transposition, adaptation, and others. The new priority rethinks the fixed-complete (determined) contextual environment into the fluid-incomplete (undetermined) flow of translation. Thus translation seems to move away from the search of the intellectual selection of the fixed sense of interpreted language towards the linguistic-cultural changes of the total significance in what can be called the interpretated language.
A third type is the equivalence of the source text to the target text. The source text disappears from the perfect equivalence of ordinary translation to a degree of imperfect non-equivalence in the target text. In his creative terminology, Peirce called this “a class consisting of a lot of things jumbled higgledy-piggledy” (CP: 3.454), hardly a logical system. Peirce suggested a tentative, perhaps vague, fragment of discourse involving emotional tone in the bodily or energetic performance of the linguistic artifact. The equivalence between original and likeness is not the same as “conventional” translation. The replicas can be semioticized and re-semioticized in new interpretants – what remains in the target is only a shade of fidelity, not the real thing, of the source text. In semiotranslation, brought in a wider sense as ordinary translation, real equivalence is downgraded as only reflecting “some” degree or value of Peirce’s degenerate problem-solving method into generating more and more degenerate signs (Gorlée 1990). The weakening process of the degenerate qualities of the sign gives the translator and translation critic a sceptical tone of almost utter freedom to play with.
Within the term semiotranslation (which I started in Gorlée 1994: 226-232), the ideal of human translators of striving for Peirce’s genuine semiosis – the “perfect” sign of logical thirdness – has become softened (or weakened) in the “imperfect” pseudo-semiosis of Peirce’s “quasi-minds” (EP: 2: 544). As argued before (Gorlée 2004), the human mind of the translator creates new but biased quasi-translations, grounded in quasi-signs made by the quasi-thought of a quasi-mind. Quasi-translations bring forth not the intellectual mind, but also some unanalyzable, unpredictable, unsystemic, and controversial qualities of the feeling and mind of the interpreter-translator. The semiotic signatures of slippages, displacements, and substitutions of the translated replicas do not manifest the high-level regenerate semiosis of exact logic, but rather reflect the lower-level idea of some degenerate forms of pseudo-semiosis (CP: 3.425-3.455; Gorlée 1990).
Semiotranslation replaces the normative fixities of the technical replica – fixed equivalence in overdetermination, underdetermination, concentration, compensation, explicitation, and other strategies of “ordinary” translation (Vinay/Darbelnet 1958, 1995, to a degree Catford 1980 [1965]) – into the absolute freedom of dynamical translation.
2. From intersemiosis to trans-semiosis
Semiotranslation uses the Peirce-based thinking method of detecting and analyzing signs to form the interpretants to the prior relationship of sign and object. Moving away from the camp of Saussure, and hijacked by Peirce, the view of general translation studies concerns the translation of a broader type of meaning within the open framework of Peirce’s logical and nonlogical terms, brought together as a mixture of rational and irrational terms in the target text. Peirce’s signs are divided into semiotic sign, object, and interpretant, and subdivided into various threeway elements to correspond to Peirce’s categories of firstness, secondness, and thirdness. In translational activities, Peirce would have distinguished between the relative order of categories: interpretant, sign, and object, meaning thirdness associating firstness with secondness.
Peirce’s concept of interpretants (SS: 109ff.) remains a subject of controversy, since Peirce also used a number of other alternatives, such as explicit, suggestive, ejaculative, imperative, usual, destinate, and normative interpretants. One may conclude that the first trio of immediate, dynamical, and final interpretants can be limited to the successive stages of the interpretive process (semiosis) of translation. The second one, the emotional, energetic, and logical interpretants, will indicate the sign-action from the perspective of the person-oriented agent, the interpreter or translator. The threeway elements are not separate formulas but must interact with one other in semiosis, while genuine sign-action of semiotranslation means that the interpreters or translator must work with the relative art of human pseudo-semiosis.
Semiotranslation channels a dynamic network of interpretant-signs, regarded as “imperfect“ sign-things, but the semiosis of translation works with living signs to achieve perfect nature. This means that the progressive sign-action of translation can grow from “imperfect” to “perfect”. A translation is a (re)creative work by a translator, going through the successive moods, aspects, and phases of the never-ending acts of the changing ideas and thoughts in changing time and space. Simplifying the complex tasks of the translator, the vague and impromptu translations, made by so-called “bad” translators, bring in unintegrated and inexact features; they could under the fortunate circumstances of “good” translators grow into “in-between” and even good translations. The eventual growth means that any interpretant-message whatsoever can perform (and re-perform) between “good” and “bad” meaning. In semiotranslation, this is no virtual myth, but actual reality.
In Peirce’s speculative rhetoric of scientific communication, intertextual semiosis moved from “man’s instinctive vehicle of thought” into acknowledging “quite other system of signs into which they are accustomed to translate words and forms of words and so to render them more intelligible” (MS 654: 5). In his last (but unpublished) work, Peirce was inspired by his letters to Lady Victoria Welby (SS: 94–108). In the Preface of Essays on Meaning (1910), Peirce put forth the syntactical art of “existential graphs,” and writing that:
In this system, there are none of the ordinary parts if speech; for the indivisible elements are, one and all, complete assertions. It may be that this is the case in some existing language: grammarians have, until very recently, had such an inveterate habit in their accounts of all languages of stretching them all alike upon the Procustes bed of Greek-Latin grammar. But in one aspect at any rate Existential Graphs is essentially different from language. Namely, instead of being merely protracted in time, its expressions are diagrams upon a surface, and indeed must be regarded as only a picture [Peirce’s deletion] projection upon that surface of a sign extended in three dimensions. Three dimensions are necessary and sufficient for the expression of all assertions; so that, if man’s reason was originally limited to the line of speech, which I do not affirm, it has now outgrown the limitation. (MS 654: 6–8)
Roberts (1973) fully described Peirce’s existential graphs as his discovery of the logic of machine translation (announced in MS 831: 2–12, MS 318: 40–45, MS 498: 23–24). The hardware machine articulates, reconstructs, and reasons the software “graphs” of linguistic messages in assertions, propositions, and sentences. The icons of thought are drawn in visual pictures of logical notations, sketched on a board within indexical subsigns. Peirce’s visual hypothesis form the data basis to evolve into real laws demonstrating the clearness and validity of the enclosed graphs. As a “guide to Pragmaticism, that holds up thought to our contemplation with the wrong side out, as it were” (CP: 4:7), the vague belief of the agent or receiver will identify (or not) with the formal theory of truth or falsity (Gorlée 2012: 162, 283).
In his last period, Peirce wrote in MS 654 (1910) about the final openness of the triadic semiotic sign in all kinds of contexts, environments, and territories. In theoretical terms, he wrote that:
By a Sign I mean anything whatever, real or fictile, which is capable of a sensible form, is applicable to something other than itself that is already known, and that is capable of being interpreted in another sign, which I call its Interpretant as to communicate something that may not have been previously known about its object. (MS 654: 8)
In practical terms, Peirce wrote that sign would include not language and skill, but language and art:
It considers Signs in general, a class which includes pictures, symptoms, words, sentences, books, libraries, signals, orders of command, microscopes, legislative representatives, musical concertos, performances of these, in short, whatever is adapted to mentally transmitting to a person an impression virtually emanating from something external to itself (MS 634: 18–19)
To manage further the linguistic affairs of speculative rhetoric, Jakobson gave the three types of translation (1959). Jakobson broadened the sense, meaning, and significance of translation, including the traditional concept of translation from logical language into the unknown and non-logical areas of the evolutionary territories of semiotranslation:
Intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language.
Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language.
Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems. (Jakobson 1959: 233)
Jakobson’s revolutionary division of the three types of translation gave the ordinary concept of translation the pioneering dimensions of extralinguistic (or translinguistic) horizons, beyond the fixed ways of conventionalism. He went beyond the accurate “rewording” and less accurate “translation proper” to stress the possibility of free and unbounded forms of “transmutation” (Gorlée 1994: 156ff.). Jakobson’s new division did arouse some sharp criticism in the 1960s (and also afterwards), coming from Saussurian scholars for bringing up unfamiliar and uncoded systems outside language. Semiotranslation has become the uncoded and unfamiliar object of art, far away from the skill of “ordinary” translation, which was considered as the familiar and coded activity.
Despite the early notes of criticism, the advent of intersemiosis was “officially” announced as a controversial, but existing, possibility of cross-semiosis beyond “ordinary” language. Now, after more than five decades, Jakobson’s three types of translation are supported by semioticians and semiotically-oriented translation scholars. Jakobson’s article “On linguistic aspects of translation” (1959) is included in The Translation Studies Reader (Venuti 2004: 138–143) – or can be rejected, by purely linguistic translation scholars, as representing the non-empirical and “radical” fashion of semiotranslation. Yet when seen from the outlook of Peirce’s dynamical semiotics, including both language and non-linguistic sign systems, Jakobsonian threefold division can from “ordinary” translation be upshifted into the final development of complex signs – moving from semiotranslation to intersemiosis and trans-semiosis.
The criticism of Saussurian semiology and its symbiosis with translation studies may be summarized in the following three points. First, the rejection of a linguistic imperialism, in which a linguistic model can be applied to nonlinguistic objects in a metaphorical replacement, without doing justice to the nature of the nonlinguistic object. Second, semiology is basically the study of signifiers, and does not ask what signs mean but how they mean, the object referring to the sign. Saussurean meaning becomes wholly a sign-internal affair, while Peirce’s sign-external interpretant-sign falls outside the sign and objectis not studied nor even described. Finally third, the binarism, the division into a priori dual oppositions is presented as the primary instrument for exhaustive analysis, claiming to lead to objective, scientific conclusions; all this without analyzing the meaningful aspects of language and culture, the differences in time and space of sign and what is stands for, the object, can lead further to the dynamic idea-potentiality of the sign as received by the human mind. Sign and object becomes further specified, identified, and translated into Peirce’s interpretant-signs. In semiotranslational activities, Peirce would, as argued before, have distinguished between the relative order of the interpretant (itself a sign), followed by sign and object.
Peirce’s semiotics argues that any scientific inquiry is best conceived as the dynamic truth-searching process of semiosis. The interpretive web is goal-directed (teleological) but without fixed results, no fixed methods, no fixed redefinitions, and no fixed agents. All results, methods, and agents are provisional and temporary habits of translation, which can be left for new habits. Translation is characterized as a broken chronicle – metaphorized as the meaningful mouthfuls of “haiku” (Gorlée 2003: 235–244) – which accepts repeatable and nonrepeatable patterns of behavior in forming good habits and leaving bad habits of translation behind. The same is also true for semiotranslation with the significance of interpretative and reinterpretative translation. Peirce’s ideas about the broad approach to linguistics have dramatically changed the whole traditional approach of translation studies, which concentrates heavily on the basically unverifiable dichotomies labeled as a dogmatic form of dual self-thought. Semiotranslation offers tentative answers of an evolutionary and skeptical nature about the frontiers of translatability and untranslatability, equivalence and lack of equivalence, fidelity and infidelity of the translation, the role and function of the intelligence, energy, and emotionalism of the translator’s fallabilistic mind and infallabilistic heart; as well as the concepts of translation and retranslation, the fate of the source text, the destiny of the target text, as well as posing other semiotic questions of translation in its wider sense to grow into the coded and uncoded phenomenon of Peircean intersemiosis. The linguistic and cultural trans-semiosis has been further argued and exemplified in my most recent book From Translation to Transduction: The Glassy Essence of Intersemiosis (Gorlée in press).
References
ANDERSON, Myrdene & Dinda L. GORLÉE. 2011. (Semiotics, Communication and Cognition 9) Duologue in the familiar and the strange: Translatability, translating, translation. In Karen HAWORTH, Jason HOGUE & Leonard G. SBROCCHI (eds.), Semiotics 2010: Proceedings of the Semiotic Society of America, 221–232. Ontario: Legas Publishing.
CATFORD, J.C. 1980 [1965]. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GORLÉE, Dinda L. 1990. Degeneracy: A reading of Peirce’s writing. Semiotica 81 (1/2). 71–92.
GORLÉE, Dinda L. 1994. Semiotics and the Problem of Translation: With Special Reference to the Semiotics of Charles S. Peirce (Approaches to Translation Studies 12). Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
GORLÉE, Dinda L. 2003. Meaningful mouthfuls in semiotranslation. In Susan Petrilli (ed.), Translation Translation (Approaches to Translation Studies 21), 235–252. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
GORLÉE, Dinda L. 2004. On Translating Signs: Exploring Text and Semio-Translation (Approaches to Translation Studies 24). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
GORLÉE, Dinda L. 2012. Wittgenstein in Translation: Exploring Semiotic Signatures. Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
GORLÉE, Dinda L. 2015. From Translation to Transduction: The Glassy Essence of Intersemiosis. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
JAKOBSON, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In Reuben A. Brower (ed.), On Translation, 232-239. New York: Oxford University Press.
MORRIS, Charles. 1946. Signs, Language, and Behavior. New York: George Braziller.
NIDA, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill.
PEIRCE, Charles S. Peirce.1931-1966. Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce, Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, and Arthur W. Burks (eds.). 8 vols. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. (CP vol# paragraph #)
PEIRCE, Charles S. Peirce. 1977. Semiotic and Significs: The Correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby. Charles S. Hardwick (ed.). Bloomington, IN & London: Indiana University Press. (SS page#)
PEIRCE, Charles S. Peirce. (1992–1998). The Essential Peirce, Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel (eds.). 2 vols. Bloomington & Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. (EP vol# and page#)
PEIRCE, Charles S. Peirce. (MSS). Photocopies from Peirce Edition Project. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University-Purdue University. ( MS# page#)
ROBERTS, Don D. 1973. The Existential Graphs of Charles S. Peirce. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.
SAUSSURE, Ferdinand de. 1949. Cours de linguistique générale, Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye (eds.). Paris: Payot.
TOURY, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
VENUTI, Lawrence (ed.). 2004. The Translation Studies Reader. 2nd ed. New York & London: Routledge.
VINAY, Jean-Paul & Jean DARBELNET. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier.
VINAY, Jean-Paul & Jean DARBELNET. 1995. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Method for Translation, Juan C. Sager and M.J. Hamel (transl.). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
WELLEK, René and Austin WARREN. 1963 [1949]. Style and stylistics. In René Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature: A Seminal Study of the Nature and Function of Literature in all its Contexts, 174–185. 3d ed. London: Penguin.