-
De Man's point is a question is both rhetorical and grammatical, and the one cannot be reduced to the other. Both readings are available.
德曼想指出的是，一个问句既是修辞型问句又是语法型问句，那么一个不能变成另一个，两种理解都有效。
-
It must be, after all, a grammaticization of rhetoric," the whole point of which is that the worm of interpretation keeps turning. All right?
那一定是将修辞语法化“，整个观点,诠释的螺丝一直在旋转，对吧？
-
It doesn't arbitrarily stop anywhere because rhetoric and grammar remain irreducible. We have to keep thinking of them as being uncooperative with each other.
它不会武断地停到任何一个地方,因为修辞和语法是不可削减的，我们必须,一直把它们看成是相互不合作的。
-
He's saying they're doing great work but they forget this one little thing: you cannot reconcile rhetoric and grammar.
他说的是，他们做得非常好,但是他们忘记了一个小问题，修辞和语法是不可能和解的。
-
There is this wonderful overarching voice that unifies everything after all. This is what I call," says de Man, "the rhetoricization of grammar, right--but wait!
有这种包罗万象的声音,它把所有东西都联合起来，这就是我所说的“，德曼说，“语法的修辞化，对了，等等！
-
Edith, a reader of sublime simplicity, as de Man says, misinterprets the rhetorical question as a grammatical question: "What is the difference? I'm curious to know."
而依迪斯一个极端天真的读者，正如德曼所说，错误地将这个修辞问句理解成一个语法型问句：,“区别在哪里呢，我想知道“
-
Right? That would be an entirely different matter, wouldn't it, because you would have absolutely no idea whether the question was rhetorical or grammatical, right?
对吧，那将会是一个完全不同的情况，难道不是吗，因为你就会完全不知道,这个问句是修辞型的还是语法型的，对吧？
-
He makes a perfectly plausible argument to the effect that the question is grammatical rather than rhetorical.
他提出了一个貌似非常可信的论据,大意是说这个问句是语法型的，而不是修辞型的。
-
They cannot be reconciled as traditional students of the relationship between rhetoric and grammar in studying the rhetorical and grammatical effects of literature take for granted.
它们不可能和解,像传统的修辞学与语法学关系的学生,在研究修辞学和语法学对文学的影响之时想当然地做的那样。
-
Notice that the relationship between the rhetorical is and the grammatical is is basically the relationship between what Jakobson calls the "poetic function" and the "metalingual function."
注意下,修辞学上的is和语法中的is之间的关系,基本上就是雅各布森所说的,“诗功能“和“元语言功能“之间的关系“
应用推荐