Explore the vast range of titles available.

Narratology is concerned with the study of narratives; but surprisingly it does not usually distinguish between original and translated texts. This lack of distinction is regrettable. In recent years the visibility of translations and translators has become a widely discussed topic in Translation Studies; yet the issue of translating a novel's point of view has remained relatively unexplored. It seems crucial to ask how far a translator's choices affect the novel's point of view, and whether characters or narrators come across similarly in originals and translations. This book addresses exactly these questions. It proposes a method by which it becomes possible to investigate how the point of view of a work of fiction is created in an original and adapted in translation. It shows that there are potential problems involved in the translation of linguistic features that constitute point of view (deixis, modality, transitivity and free indirect discourse) and that this has an impact on the way works are translated. Traditionally, comparative analysis of originals and their translations have relied on manual examinations; this book demonstrates that corpus-based tools can greatly facilitate and sharpen the process of comparison. The method is demonstrated using Virginia Woolf's To The Lighthouse (1927) and The Waves (1931), and their French translations.

[...] Arnold's relief that \"the English reader is ... saved from many a groan of impatience\" by the fact that the novel treats Anna's passion for Vronsky as having a disastrous effect on her physical and spiritual health stems from an oblique censure of the French realist novel and its perceived glorification of baser passions.3 From this point on, Russian realism was widely seen as the rightful heir to the English realistic novel of George Eliot and Charles Dickens.4 The fact that a Russian novel translated into French takes the place of English fiction just as lower-class subjects are becoming readers seems unlikely to be sheer coincidence.\\n The ability of the turn-of-thecentury reader to gain access to Tolstoy's novels and to become familiar with the writer through the best known of his works allowed that reader to begin the democratizing process of turning the inaccessible into the familiar, but rather than just a mark of class, this is a fact of book consumption: any decision to read a new, foreign, or unfamiliar text involves identifying oneself as the proper reader for that text, which means recognizing oneself as the kind of reader who has enough familiarity with that kind of text to be able to approach it at all. Versions of this critique can be seen in Sandra Bermann's call to respect the essential alterity of the foreign language and in David Damrosch's characterization of the current state of \"world literature\" as evidence of the \"Disneyfication\" of the globe.38 Arnold and Wedgwood's practice of reading a Russian novel neither in the original nor in their own language bears some resemblance to the modern practice in world literature of translating a text from French to English but retaining Creole words in order to familiarize the text while retaining its foreignness.39 While comparative literature's current valorization of the unfamiliar implies an ethical responsibility to different languages and cultures, it also replicates the hierarchies of an elite class project that sought to devalue what was common - everyday, shared, and familiar - and to prize the uncommon.

A meditation on the motives, powers, and limitations of an approach to literary interpretation that turns on connecting patterns of form in literary works with patterns of significance. Thus a theoretical basis is provided for a style of criticism which had established itself largely as practical—namely the thematic criticism associated with the work of Gaston Bachelard, Albert B6guin, Charles du Bos, Gaetan Picon, Marcel Raymond, Jean-Pierre Richard, Jean Starobinski, and Leo Spitzer, whose work is surveyed and evaluated.