Translation from the perspective of pragmatics.doc

translation from the perspective of pragmatics1. introduction language is generally believed to be the essential instrument of ethnic expression and belong to a specific cultural group. language can never be apart from culture. in contemporary strides, translation is regarded more as an inter-cultural communication than an inter-lingual activity. the main function of translation is to promote cultural exchanges and cultural transplanting. therefore, not only the language structure and discourse but also the cultural characters and social criteria of both languages should be mastered. translation involves a variety of subjects, such as linguistics, literature, philosophy, anthropology, psychology, etc. and “almost every aspect of life in general and of the interaction between speech communities in particular can be considered relevant to it”, hence the inter-disciplinarily of it. it needs to draw on the findings and theories of other related disciplines in order to develop and formalize its own methods. for many years new approaches and further efforts are necessary and will be of great benefit for the development of the discipline of translation. among those approaches, a pragmatic one promises to provide great inspirations for translation theorists and translator. to study translation from the perspective of pragmatics has begun to draw the attention of more and more translation theorists home and abroad. in the thesis discuss some pragmatic issues in translation. including cooperative principle, pragmatic equivalence, speech acts in translation, co-operation and translation, politeness and translation, etc. a systematic study of the applicability of pragmatics to translation theories and practice will be innovative. this thesis is a tentative study on the implications of recent research in pragmatics, the principle of relevance in particular, for theoretical development and practical application in the field of translation, with a view to offering a new perspective for translation studies. this thesis is going to be developed in five chapters. chapter one is an introductory part that illustrates the pragmatic of translation. chapter two explores the translation and cooperative principle. chapter three deals with translation and pragmatic equivalence. chapter four tries to combine the pragmatics and translation together and tries to find a new way to translation. chapter five is the conclusion of the thesis. this thesis mainly deals with the application of pragmatic principles to translation, studies the fields where the pragmatics might be connected with the translation theory. 2. general introduction of pragmatics and translation over the centuries, scholars have tried time and again to define or settle what translation is, only to find that every new proposal was doomed to be found inadequate or simply wrong by some school of critics. nida once said there is no theory of translation in the technical sense of a coherent set of general propositions used as principles to explain a class of phenomena, but there are quite a few theories in the broad sense of a set of principles which are helpful in understanding the nature of translating or in establishing criteria for evaluating a translated text.” （nida 126) these principles are stated in terms of how to produce an acceptable translation. nida is right. we may have to deal with such translation principles that are only comparatively rational and valid2.1 the definition of pragmaticswhat, first of all, should be pointed out is that pragmatics does not constitute an additional component of a theory of language, but offers a different perspective. there are definitely no linguistic phenomena, at any level of structure, which a pragmatic perspective can afford to ignore (verschueren 212).the term “pragmatics was first introduced in foundations of the theory of signs by charles w. morris (1971), who contrasts it with semantics and syntax .pragmatics is the study of the relations of signs to interpreters” and semantics- the study of the “relations of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable”, syntactic the study of the “formal relations of signs to one another.” morriss use of “sign” here is a bit confusing, since syntax studies the grammatical relations of morphemes, which are not signs. if morris; “sign”, according to steven davis, was replaced with “linguistic unit”, we could take morris to claim that syntax is the study of the grammatical relations of linguistics units to one another, and semantics is the study of the relation of linguistic units to the world; while pragmatics is the study of the relation of linguistic units to their users (he ziran 23). according to the continental tradition, pragmatics is treated as a perspective on language; it exists on various levels of language, dealing not only with the theory of language itself, but also with other aspects having to do with its usage: the interlocutors requests, beliefs, wishes, intentions, and the relations between the interlocutor and the real world. jef verschueren further points out pragmatics, at the most elementary level, can be defined as the study of language use, or the study of linguistic phenomena from the point of view of their usage properties and processes. in a word, as the linguistics of language use, pragmatics constitutes a general functional, such as, cognitive, social and cultural, perspective on language. either hypostasis and or parataxis is applied will not alter the logical meaning of the sentence or semantic meaning. on the contrary, it is believed that the use of hypotactic and paratactic devices embodies pragmatic meaning of the writers. firstly let us look at the difference between semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning briefly. in practice, the problem of distinguishing “language” and “language use” (parole) has centered on a boundary dispute between semantics and pragmatics. semantics explores the meaning of linguistic units, typically. at the level of words (lexical semantics) or at the level of sentences, they correspond to simple propositions or complex structure. pragmatics, compared to semantics, which traditionally deals with meaning as a dyadic relation as “what does x mean?” deals with meaning as a triadic relation as” what did you mean by x” the semantic representation (or logical form) of a sentence is distinct from its pragmatic interpretation. grammar, in general, is describable in terms of discrete and determinate categories; on the other hand, pragmatics is describable in terms of continuous and indeterminate values. the rules of grammar are fundamentally conventional; contrastively, the principles of pragmatics are fundamentally non-conventional, i.e. motivated in terms of conversational goals. in brief, semantics is rule-governed (=grammatical), while pragmatics is rhetorical that is principle-controlled (leech 83).leech puts forward the following criteria to judge whether a particular discussion of meaning belongs to the realm of pragmatics or not: a: is reference made to addressers or addressees, or (as i shall prefer to call them, ignoring the speech/writing distinction) speakers or hearers?b: is reference made to the intention of the speaker or the interpretation of the hearer?c: is reference made to the context?d: is reference made to the kind of act or action performed by means or by virtue of using language?if the answer to one or more of these questions is “yes”, there is reason to suppose that we are dealing with pragmatics. pragmatics has potential application to all fields focusing n how utterances are understood. such fields include those like the study on rhetoric, literature, translation, man-machine interaction, etc. because of the common aspects of pragmatics mentioned above, we find that it can be applied to translation, to how a translator is able to interpret a message in the source language (sl) and reproduce it in the target language (tl) appropriately.2.2 some studies in translationtranslation is an incredibly general notion which can be understood in many different ways. for example, one may talk of translation as a process or a product, and identify such sub-types as literary translation, technical translation, subtitling and machine translation. moreover, while more typically it just refers to the transfer of written texts, and the term sometimes also includes interpreting.2.2.1 the definition of translation and its essence the basic difference between functionalist translation theory and other theories is that the functionalist theory tells the difference between translational behavior and translation. the functionalist school continued the use of the definition of behavior given by geory henrik von wright. behavior is a purposeful transformation from one state into another state. if the transformation involves two or more people, the behavior is called mutual behavior.” manttari defines translational behavior as complicated behavior designed for realization of cross-cultural communication or cross-linguistic communication. translation itself is a translational behavior based on the metatext. in other words, translation is a kind of transformation in which communicative codes or non-linguistic codes are transformed from one language into another language. if we say translational behavior refers to the work done in cross-cultural communication, translation is the work done in transformation of texts. from the above definitions, we can see translational behavior and translation are a kind of purposeful cross-cultural communication.2.2.2 principles of translation functionalists believe there are two kinds of principles: the general principles that apply to all translation process and the special principles being used under special circumstances. the general principles include the principle of faithfulness as mentioned in the introduction, the principle of skopos and the principle of coherence. if the principle of skopos requires the function of the translated version vary from that of the original, translators need not strictly abide by the principle of faithfulness. in case the purpose of the translation violates the principle of coherence, then the latter principle will not be applied. functionalists pay special attention to the former case. they believe when the principle of faithfulness fails, complete translation shall be taken as criteria. they define complete translation as the fulfillment of a specific purpose. the principles of skopos and faithfulness shall be the top priorities, and the other principles are subordinate. functional theory is unique in that it gives answers to problems which cannot be solved by linguistics. it expanded the scope of stud in translation. traditional theories hold that translation is to find the equivalences of the source language in the targeted language, while functionalists go far beyond that. they expand it into an activity that involves the study of the transition of language signs to non-language signs in the context of cross-cultural research. functionalists and linguists also have different conceptions on the significance of the principle of equivalence. for linguists, it is the basis of the theory; for functionalists, it is a principle only applied in some cases and subject to the purpose of translation. in addition to this principle, there are other three main principles, the principle of faithfulness and other principles under specific circumastances. it can be fairly said that functional theory is a multi-criteria system with the principle of faithefulness as its pillar. the theory is closer to the reality, because in real life translators are faced with a variety of situations. a single standard is not enough. 2.3 general theories of pragmatics in translation in general, according to hickey, pragmatic approaches attempt to explain translation- procedure, process and product- from the viewpoint of what is done by the original author in or by the text, what is done in the translation as a response to the original, how and why it is done in that way in that context, according to mona baker, pragmatic translation, or pragmatic approach, is a term used to refer to translation which pays attention not only to denotative meaning but also to “the way utterances are used in communicative situations and the way we interpret them in context.” pragmatics is a branch of linguistics devoted to “the study of meaning , not as generated by the linguistic system but as conveyed and manipulated by participants in a communicative situation”(bake 110);this means that a pragmatic translation will attempt to convey connotative meaning , allusion, and interpersonal aspects of communication such as implicature , tone and so on. many insights on pragmatics have been incorporated into various translation theories, such as corporative principle, equivalence and so on.2.3.1 cooperative principle an american philosopher named grice thought that in all conversations the speaker and the hearer cooperate with each other to make their conversation successful. this is a basic principle in peoples conversation and he called it cooperative principle, which he defined as follows :( grice 116) make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. this super ordinate principle comprises the following subordinate rules or maxims: quantity maxim:1) make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange).2) do not make your contribution more informative than is required.quality maxim:try to make your contribution one that is true:1) do not say what you believe to be false.2) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.relation maxim:be relevant.manner maxim:be perspicuous:1) avoid obscurity of expression.2) avoid ambiguity.3) be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).4) be orderly. it is said that the conversation would be most successful if this principle and these maxims are complied with. but people always violate this principle or these maxims, which make the conversation partially successful or simply a failure, or simply generate conversational implicature. for the first case, he ziran provided us one example: (8) one farmer meets another and says: “hey, sam, my horses got distemper. what did you give yours when it had it?” “turpentine,” grunted sam. a week later they meet again and the first farmer shouts: “sam, i gave my horse turpentine like you said and it killed him.” “so did mine.” nodded sam. here, the goal set by the farmer is not only to ask how sams horse was treated, but also to find out the result of such treatment. in a strict sense, sam does not follow the conversational goal set by the farmer asking for enough information about the possibility to cure the horse. in this transaction, he lacks interest and is being cooperative only on the surface. the farmer is there fore misled by this implicit dropping out of the cooperation. in other words, sams answer is not informative at the present stage and he violates the maxim of quantity. so the communication is only partially successful. for the second case, many examples have been provided in various papers of pragmatics. chen rong offered the following simple and convincing examples.(9)professor a wrote a recommendation letter for his student who wanted a philosophical job as follows:dear sir: mr. xs command of english is excellent and his attendance at tutorials has been regular. yours etcof course, professor a did not provide enough information because in this letter nothing special is related to philosophy and therefore he violated the maxim of quantity. the possible implicature is that professor a did not think mr. x was good enough for a philosophical job.(10)queen victoria was a person and could not be made of iron. therefore the speakers violate the maxim of quality and the possible implicature is that she possessed one of the features of iron, such as solidarity or lack of softness.(11)a: where is my box of chocolates? b: the children were in your room this morning. it seems that b did not answer as question and b violated the maxim of relation. the implied meanings of his answer may be either the children had eaten up that box of chocolates or the children knew where that box of chocolates was.(12)a: lets get the kids something. b: okay, but i veto i-c-e-c-r-e-a-m-s.b spelled the word “ice creams” and violated the maxim of manner. the implicature of bs answer is that he was not wiling to speak out that word lest the kids ask for “ice creams”.2.3.2 pragmatic equivalencegenerally, all translation theories seek correspondence between the t and the tt, which inevitably involves a theory of equivalence. it is the dominant evaluation concept in translation. that is , the quality of a translated text is assessed in terms of its equivalence to the original text. due to the differences of the languages and cultures involved in translation, total equivalence cannot actually be achieved between the st and the tt, and “equivalence in difference” has been agreed upon by most translation theorists. then in what aspects the tt should be equivalent to the st has become a controversial topic among them, as wilss notes, “equivalence is one of the central issues in the theory of translation and yet one on which linguists seem to have agreed to disagree.”different concepts of equiva