Cabrera is ‘a self-conscious interrogation of the nature and function of communication’ (53). She finds that ‘a large number of modernist writers (many of the also translators) were “foreigners” who sought to express the articulation of alternative identities through a radical new language’ (53). Though English is not a radical new language for Nabokov it is radical enough expressed through his own sense of lacking linguistic and literary devices in the newer language. By moving and being in new languages and cultures you also develop alternative identities that is then expressed with this foreignness as present in Lolita with the European and American tradition as well as the heritage of Humbert having parents of mixed descent (Nabokov 9). This is evident of exile and refugees that brought into a new union create a foreign experience.
He defines hypertext as every text derived from a previous one by means of direct or indirect transformation, but not through commentary. What Genette terms the hypotext is termed by most other critics the inter-text that is a text which can be definitely located as a major source of significations for a text. His hypertextuality might seem rather similar to his architextuality, because he is not concerned with a general facet of language, or culturally signifying practices, but with a generic aspect of the closed system of literature. The main difference between hypertextuality and architextuality is that whilst pastiche, parody and caricature are essentially and intentionally hypertextual, tragedy, comedy, the novel and the lyric are based on the notion of imitation of generic modals rather specific hypotexts. The meaning of hypertextual world depends upon the reader’s knowledge of the hypotext which the hypertext either satirically transforms or imitates for the purpose of pastiche.
The fictional world is full of chaos, as people tend to prefer unstable theories to countless philosophies. Specifically, there is a literary shift from linearity and order to randomness and fragmentation. Consequently, Postmodernist writers understand that their works are subject to interpretation; however, they believe that the flexibility of understanding in texts is the basis for the development of innovative ideas in society. Moreover, Kurt Dinan writes in a nonlinear, flexible fashion by writing with a component of Mystery. Subsequently, the reader can make different predictions on what will occur throughout Don’t Get Caught, and the ability to predict and analyze uniquely is one of the principal ideals of Postmodernist literature.
Such a strain of thought runs through the earlier Faulkner fiction. Paul R. Lilly is of the view that for Faulkner the highest language is silence. Concentrating on the examples of Caddy and Addie as speakers of an “impeccable” language, Lilly argues that Faulkner's ideal was to render in words the illusion of a language purer than words (“Caddy and Addie: Speakers of Faulkner's Impeccable Language” Journal of Narrative Technique 170-182). Language, as it restricts, constrains and distorts thought is seen as a contaminant. Though Faulkner recognizes that the dream of an impeccable speech is only an “imaginary hypothesis”, he seeks to create moments that embody the “illusion that language is most alive when it can thrust itself beyond words” (Quest for Failure
It is certainly true to say that a structuralist perspective reveals layers of meaning in the text and allows us as readers to interpret the poem in different ways. Although structuralism is only one school of literary criticism, it still means that there are still multiple ways the reader can approach this poem. The removal of Wordsworth (as the poet) from the poem is central to the idea of structuralism and gives the reader a first person perspective. Reading the poem in this way allows us to form personal thoughts on the language used in the poem and the way it affects us individually without being swayed by external influences. The comparison of the poem to another text allows for the identification of an individual poetic style, conveying the possibility that poem is written to appeal to a mass audience rather than, in this case, for a particularly personal reason.
Short characterizes this type of literary work as essentially concerned with the subjective, individualistic process of interpreting literary texts. Shot says: it is true that each reader will to some extent interpret a text differently from others, merely as a consequence of the fact that we are all different from one another, have had different experiences, and so on. But it should be obvious that such a subjectivist view of literary understanding runs counter to the presuppositions of stylistic analysis, whose proponents assume that our shared knowledge of the structure of our language and the processes for interpreting utterances in our community imply a relatively large degree of common understanding, in spite of differences in individual response. For the stylistician, the major fact to be explained is that, although we are all different, we agree to a remarkable extent over the interpretation, the range of interpretations which have been produced for even the most discussed texts is remarkably small compared with the theoretically infinite set of ‘possible’ readings. (Short
Each literary work exists in relation to other works. Therefore, a translator may encounter problems with literary references, quotations or allusions. In cases where their source had not been ascribed, the translator must identify them, yet not by translating them but by quoting a translation from already established rendition. Gender constitutes another difficulty. In non-literary texts it fulfils a grammatical function, in literary texts it can become an item of a symbolic structure.
At first let’s start with discuss the meaning o translation, what is the meaning of it.. Translation means how to transport the idea of text, meaning of it which correspond in the same way and the same effects so can the readers or the audience understand it in clear way as the original one there is two key terms in the practice of translation: fidelity and equivalence. The translation target is how we can explore linguistics aspect of translation fidelity is the value of who we can discuss the translation to be clear to the reader. Equivalence is to discuss the language itself; it didn’t have a value judgment Both of them have complicated perception, there is no comparing word by word... we are comparing text especially if it pass through culture. We can’t add a part in the translated text
F igurative language is the language that expresses one thing in terms of another by analogy, extension, or other association. A critical approach to drama written in verse requires the knowledge of not only of metre but also the function and purpose of the various figures of speech. These should never be only decoration because they are one of the means by which the playwright can develop and express his meaning. The various figures of speech have often been made interchangeable, thus a satisfactory definition of them is difficult to provide. There is a tendency to include symbols, similes, and metaphors making up the imagery.
Newmark (1988: 83) wrote that it is possible to find the closest equivalent, but impossible to fully translate cultural phrases. He claimed that: “Their translation uses are limited, since they are not accurate, but they can be used in general texts, publicity and propaganda, as well as for brief explanation to readers who are ignorant of the relevant SL culture. They have a greater pragmatic impact than culturally neutral terms. Occasionally,