adaptation theory

discourse whose “literariness” can be studied (18). Several chapters are stunning in the scope and development of their argument—most notably, to my mind, the fi nal four chapters dealing with “Critical Practices.” Beyond the stellar quality of the book in general, I particularly enjoy Culler’s commitment to a position—for instance, his anxiety about studying the notion of omniscience “while observing a president who . . . manifestly thinks he has nothing to learn from anyone, and is convinced of the infallibility of his judgment of evil in its accordance with God’s” (184), and, elsewhere, his dismissal of Denis Dutton’s simple-minded thinking with which I’ll conclude this review. Dutton, an analytic philosopher, edits Philosophy and Literature , which annually conducts its Bad Writing Contest, an award based on “a sentence or two” and given to a published work that obfuscates ideas through “jargon-laden prose” which “sug-gests but never delivers genuine insight” (208). Culler properly turns the screw: “I think this is complete rubbish, actually. I wonder who it is who has failed to do serious intellectual work” (208). Culler’s book works wonders, indeed.John DolisPenn State University, ScrantonA Theory of Adaptation . By Linda Hutcheon. New York: Routledge, 2006. xvi + 232 pp. $22.95.Linda Hutcheon’s new book on adaptation begins with the statement, “[a]dapting is a bit like redecorating,” which is an apt description of what is happening across the media landscape today. Interior design shows have revitalized countless homes with new paint and selective staging, bestselling novels have revisited familiar characters and settings without their original authors, fi lm narratives move from the screen to the stage then back to the screen in a few short years, and video games extend classic fi lms and television programs in order to allow gamers to navigate (and often shoot their way) through familiar cinematic environments. With an understanding of this new terrain, A Theory of Adaptation supplements comparative adaptation theory with a critical overview of the entire process of adaptation—the what, who, why, how, where, and when of media incarnations based on previous works. comparative literature studies, vol. 45, no. 3, 2008.Copyright © 2008. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.C O M P A R A T I V E L I T E R A T U R E S T UD IE S404405B O O K R E V I E W SIn doing so, Hutcheon stages a new approach to evaluating the adaptation that considers not only narrative strategies, but also the mediums in which they are presented.The structure of the book provides a concise overview of the exchanges that occur during the process of adaptation across various media forms. Following the lead of Robert Stam, Hutcheon moves the argument about adaptation beyond fi delity, which seems primarily invested in chasing loss, into far more productive critical territory. The fi rst section of the book addresses issues of audience reception related to adapted works. What makes this approach unique is that Hutcheon is interested in understanding the experience of adaptation. She notes: “Part of this pleasure, I want to argue, comes simply from repetition with variation, from the comfort of ritual combined with the piquancy of surprise” (4). Hutcheon identifi es a primary industrial imperative within the contemporary entertainment industry, which is a pattern of repetitive media consumption across a range of forms. For this reason, adaptations dominate the media landscape from video games to television spin-offs to webisodes, establishing what producers hope will be an ongoing entertainment experience without boundaries. Hutcheon draws us into a study of the “politics of intertextuality” (xii) in order to understand that adaptations exist not in a hierarchy of source material and recreation, but rather as works that are in dialogue.Chapter 2 covers the exchanges between telling and showing in r elation to media specifi city. Hutcheon gives special attention to the aspects of per-formance, specifi cally interpretations encompassing gesture, dialogue, and the voice—areas of media studies that have often been neglected in the past. She even extends this analysis of gesture into the area of video games, which is highly relevant to this emerging entertainment form and new media theory. Subsequently, chapter 3 deals with the “who” and “why” of the adaptation, specifi cally considering authorship as “interpretation” with the understanding that media production is collaborative on every level. Hutcheon presents this analysis against the backdrop of intellectual property concerns, specifi cally the legal constraints related to availability of rights, even with works in the public domain. The “why” of adaptation is expanded to consider the nature of cultural capital. For example, media producers must constantly evaluate the viability of an adaptation through an understanding of the audience’s previous awareness of a story and often match this with the institutional imperatives of the distributors, whether that might be PBS or a specifi c theatrical company, which caters to specifi c demographics or audiences. The fi nal chapters of the book address the how, when, and where of the adaptation process, in which Hutcheon connects adaptation to the larger cultural fi eld, specifi cally to celebrity, current events,406C O M P A R A T I V E L I T E R A T U R E S T UD IE Sand transcultural considerations of race and gender. This analysis becomes p articularly important as Hollywood reaches beyond its borders to borrow stories from other nations to create fi lms like The Departed and V anilla Sky.Hutcheon avoids extended case studies, opting instead for examples drawn from many sources in a form of meta-analysis. This approach is simultaneously a strength and weakness. Overall, the author demonstrates an extensive com-mand of examples from novels, the stage, fi lm, and even radio and theme parks, but an extended examination of one or two of these areas might have served as a model for future analysis by students and scholars. The attention paid to this range of works will undoubtedly provoke dynamic and shifting debates within seminars at both the undergraduate and graduate level. For the general reader, The Theory of Adaptation asks audiences to think not just about which was better, the book or the fi lm (or the video game or the theme park ride), but rather what is this process saying about “the human imagination” (177).William WhittingtonUniversity of Southern CaliforniaRomantic Theory: Forms of Refl exivity in the Revolutionary Era. By Leon Chai. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006. xx + 283 pp. $55.00.The nine chapters of this thoughtful portrait of the Romantic period survey key transformations in European thought in the wake of the French Revolu-tion. According to Leon Chai, the writing as well as the scientifi c research of the period are best understood through their explicitly articulated rela-tionship with the process of thinking, or with a mode of refl exivity that can be associated with “theory.” However, because his paradigm is broad, Chai identifi es several tendencies unique to the “revolutionary era,” writing, for example, that “the dominant topoi” of high Romantic theory include “the spatial treatment of concepts, the primacy of development over concepts, and, fi nally, the creation of metatheory” (xiv). These are taken as symptoms of the Romantic turn and as the defi ning foundations of contemporarycomparative literature studies,vol.45, no.3, 2008.Copyright © 2008. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.。

A d a p t a t i o n-t h e o r yAdaptation Theory1.IntroductionVerschueren’s Adaptation Theory appeared as a complete and mature theory in 1999 when his book Undersatnding Pragmatics was published. Compared with traditional views on pragmatics, Verschueren detaches pragmatics from the traditional linguistic braches, regards language use as the object of pragmatics. On his approach, “pragmatics does not constitute an additional component of a theory of language, but it offers a different perspective” (Verschueren, 2000: 2). He defines pragmatics as “a general cognitive, social and cultural perspective on linguistic phenomenon in relation to their usage in forms of behaviour (ibid:7). He takes pragmatics as a functional perspective, instead of taking it as one brach of linguistics along aside with phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics.2.Linguistic choices makingUsing language must consist of the continuous making of linguistic choices, consciously or unconsciously, for language-internal and/or language-external reasons. These choices can be situated at any level of linguistic forms: phonetic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, lexical, and semantic (Verschueren, 2000: 55-56). Making choices is a two-way process which requires the choice both in the producing and interpreting an utterance. There are some features in the process of choice making:●Choices are indeed made at every possible level of structure which ranges fromphonetic, phonological, morphological to syntactic, lexical and semantic, etc;●Speakers do not only choose forms but also strategies;●The process of choice making may show various degrees of consciousness;●Choices are made both in producing and interpreting an utterance;● A language user has no freedom og choice between choosing and not choosing,except that at the level where he or she can decide either too use language or to remain silent;●Influenced and restricted by the social and cultural factors, choices are notequivalent for every user.3.Three key notions of language use●Variability: is the property of language which defines the range of possibilityfrom which choices can be made. It is dynamic rather than static. E.g.A: Where is Acton?B1: He died two weeks ago.B2: He has been asleep in the arms of God.B3: He went to his long home.●Negotiability: choices are not made mechanically or according to strictictrules or fixed from-function relationships, but rather on the basis of highlyflexible principles and strategies. E.g.A: How is my boy in school?B1: He must be taught right from wrong.B2: He needs to be brought back into the mainstream.●Adaptability enables human beings to make negotiable linguistic choicesfrom a variable range of possibilities in such a way as to approach points ofsatisfaction for communicative need. It is based in the previous twoproperties of language variablity and negotiability. E.g.A: How does he get along with his classmaates?B1: The student is a bully. He is quarrelsome and browbeats, frightens or hurts smaller or weaker puplils.B2: He needs help in learning to use his leadership qualities democratically.4.Four angles of adaptation●Contextual correlates of adaptability. It includes all the ingredients of thecommunicative contexts with which linguitic choices have to be interadaptable.The range goes from aspects of the physical surrounding to social relationships between speakers and hearers and the interlocutors’ state of mind.Physical worldProduction Social world interpretationMintal world●Structural objects of adaptability. The process of choice-making takes place at allpossible levels of linguistic structure that involves variability of any layer ofstructure, from sound to discourse. The language user selects linguistic structures in a wide range of linguitic realities in order to adapt to the spefic context.Richard: Can I drive you home?Elexandra: No thanks. The train is just up the street. It won’t take me long at all.Philip: She is a smart young lady, and very nice.●Dynamics concerns more the nature and development over time of therelationship between context and structure. It refers to actual processes ofadaptation in which, language use generates meaning dynamically by making use of the context-and structure-related tools. E.g.1.I hereby bequeath all my possessions to my wife. (Only after decalringthis sentence in court can the wish become effective.)2.I take Mary Alice to be my wedded wife. (in a Catholic weddingceremony and this oath can be declared void at a later time if themarriage is not consummated.)Salience. It clearly shows the status of adaptation process in people’s minds.Degree of the salience of the adaptation processes are basically a function of the operation of the reflexive awareness involved in language use. Not all choices, whether in production or interpretation, are made equally consciously orunconsciously. Some are virtually automatic and others are highly motivated.In all these four aspects, the ‘mind in society’ plays a crucial role in making evry decision. The using of labguage to express meaning is a dynamic process, in which the relationship between context and structure is influenced by the different degrees of salience. The Adaptaion Theory presents the major concptual framework for universal pragmatic phenomena.5.Adaptbility and adaptationAdaptability is the property of language which enables human beings to make negotiable linguistic choices from a variable range of possibilities in such a way as to approach points of satisfaction for communicative needs. Adaptation is a dynamic process in which language producers manipulate linguistic structures to adjust to the contextual demands in accordance with their intentions so that they can succeed in achieving their overaall communicaative needs. The adaptability of language is one of the prerequisites which make the process of adaptabilty. Other prerequisites are variability and negotiability. All linguistic choices are results of linguistic adaptation, no matter it is made automatically or highly motivated. The objects to which linguistic structures adapt cover both intra-linguistic and extra-linguistic factors.。

Structural Objects of Adaptabilityin E-C Translation of Academic ThesisAdaptation Theory thinks that “... using language must consist of the continuous making of linguistic choices, consciously or unconsciously...” (Versehueren, 2000: 55-56) Versehueren points out that the process of making-choice can be comprehended on three linguistic properties -- variability, negotiability and adaptability. Adaptability can be viewed from four perspectives, namely contextual correlates of adaptability, structural objects of adaptability, dynamic adaptability and salience of adaptability process. (Versehueren, 1999: 65-66) This passage will analyze the translation of academic thesis mainly from the perspective of structural objects of adaptability.Structural objects of adaptability means making choices at various layers of linguistic structure including sound, word, syntax, cold, style and chapter. In this thesis, the author will mainly analyze E-C translation of academic thesis from the perspective of structural objects of adaptability.1 Adaptation at the Lexical LevelIn order to achieve better the informative and communicative function of the text, we need to make adaptability in the process of translation. At lexical level, the translator needs to understand correctly the meaning of words combining specific contexts and also convey the meaning in appropriate way of expression.1.1 Transformation of Lexical MeaningTransformation of lexical meaning means the meaning of the word can be transformed into another one, with one as literal meaning in the dictionary and the other one as specific meaning considering specific context. (Yang Man, 2015) In the process of translation, the translator should comprehend the meaning of the word combining the context and choose the most suitable expression to convey the meaning. Adaptation at lexical level conforms to the reading habit of target reader so as to improve reading experience.ST1 Hume interprets our tendency to assign identity through time as a "natural propension,"TT1休谟把我们确定长期身份的倾向解释为一种“自然天性”ST2 pension" to ascribe identity where evidence shows diversity "is so great,"TT2 迹象呈现多样性时，确定身份的“倾向”“极大”Analysis: Common meaning of “assign” in the dictionary is “distribute, attribute”. In the text, we can see a paragraph explaining that people start to investigate question of identity “what makes an individual the same through time despite partial changes” and we “constructs experience to conform to our modes of cognition”. Here we know the “assign identity” means we “determine identity”. For example, we may assign identity to a “dog” saying “this is a dog”, which means we are also determining identity for it. Therefore, the word “assign”is translated as “确定”. So it is the same as the translation of the word “ascribe”. In the dictionary it means “be caused by”or “make sb possess”. In the context, “ascribe” has the same meaning as “assign” so it is translated as “确定” as well. By choosing the best expression of a word, we convey the meaning of the word correctly and improve the reader’s understanding.ST3 the factors that enter into constructing these fictions become a topic of cognitive science, TT3 而构建想象涉及的多种因素成为认知科学的主题。