translation studies - Facultatea de Litere - Dunarea de Jos

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Carmen Ciobanu The ‘Talk Much’ Paradigms in English and Romanian focus on Agentive Noun (NAgent) and Articulator Noun (NArtic), 27 originating in the domains of Sound, Movement, Animal, and Object. The last two vertical columns exhibit psychologically motivated transfers of meaning which have altered the semantic content of lexemes and generated a network of associations due to either resemblance or difference/contrast. 28 Differences in the two paradigms basically boil down to differences in the language systems, and phraseology plentifully illustrates metaphorical transference. Expressiveness increases when metaphors appeal to several senses, such as sight, hearing etc. (Cf. Vianu 1968: 334), eliciting stronger reactions, as is the case with bazoo, clack, clapper, gab, jaw, mill, rattle-trap - cioc, plisc, clonţ, clanţă, moară, meliţă, muzicuţă; chatterer, prattler, prater, tattler – palavragiu, flecar; chatterbox, clatterer, jabberer, magpie – gaiţă, ţarcă, caragaţă, caţă, coţofană; nagger – pisălog. 29 The Romanian field exhibts similar features: [+Fast] and [+Iterative] from trăncăni through the bottom, [+Interlocutionary] from pălăvrăgi through trăncăni and [+Persistent] in toca, bombăni, hodorogi. Adjectives and Adverbs are rare. There is richer synonymic derivation with linguistic action nominalization (NAction) in Romanian. Also, slangy terms for Agentive Noun (NAgent) and Articulator Noun (NArtic), meaning ‘speaker’ and ‘mouth’ – ‘gură’, respectively, which have surfaced by “semantic derivation” (I. Iordan 1975: 333 ), outnumber the members of the English paradigm. 30 Based on the opposition [+/- Human], they evoke the Source Domains Bird and Object (tools and instruments) by a concrete image and / or by phonetic symbolism. Their evocative power is directly proportional to the distance between the Source term and the Target term as well as to the size of the Source Domain, that is, the more restricted the domain is, the more expressive the metaphor will be. Moreover, rarely spilling over word class borders, nominal articulator metaphors are subject to severe selection restrictions. They usually occur in set phrases of narrow synonymic derivation. Compare: *gură stricată / moară stricată - *mouthbox / chatterbox; a-i merge gura ca o moară (stricată) – to chatter / ya(c)k; Mare meliţă mai eşti! - You have yap, you know? Tacă-ţi gura / fleanca!- Shut your (big) mouth / trap / yap! Ţine-ţi gura / *morişca / *râşniţa / *flaşneta / *trâmbiţa! – Hold your tongue! Nu-i tace muzicuţa / fleanca /*moara toată ziua ! Tine-ţi / închide-ţi / tacă-ţi fleanca / gura / clanţa / clonţul / clanţul! / *radioul! Tacă-ţi caţa / clanţa / clonţul / clanţul /*caterinca! Să nu-ţi mai aud clanţul! - Shut your mouth / bazoo / gob! English and Romanian share lexical items of Latin and foreign origin, which are used in formal style (e.g. loquacious(ly), loquacity, loquaciousness – locvace, locvacitate < Lat. loquī ‘to speak’; voluble, volubly, volubility, volubleness – volubil, volubilitate < Lat volvĕre ‘to roll’) or in informal style (e.g. palaver and pălăvrăgi, which go back to Tk. / Port. palavra < Gk. parabolē: What’s all the palaver about? – Ce tot vorbiţi (atâta)?/ Ce-i cu vorbăria asta? Cut the cackle! - Gata cu pălăvrăgeala!) Formal terms like logorrh(o)ea – logoree (< Gk. logos ‘word’ + rhoiā ‘flow’), for instance, may also have stylistic synonyms, like verbal diarrh(o)ea – diaree verbală. Manner of speaking metaphors carry a huge amount of information in a compact and memorable shape. They illustrate how the descriptive language of physical entities and events has been imported to an impressive collection of linguistic units in order to convey feelings, ideas, as well as to achieve economy, efficiency and expressiveness. Their “reading” of reality is, first of all, an act of intralingual communication, where formal variation indicates ‘how a meaning is expressed’ in a lexico-grammatical selection. A matter of degree rather than meaning, literal/source-oriented or dynamic equivalence should be the first option in translating the TALK MUCH - VORBI MULT paradigms. Interlingual/intertextual transfer may vary with context, style (archaic, familiar, formal, informal, jocular pejorative, popular, slangy, etc.), register or rhetorical effect and, even when lexicalizations do not perfectly match, transfer is possible in shared conceptual spaces. In pursuit of naturalness of expression, the translator should aim not at transferring 38
TRANSLATION STUDIES: RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE VIEWS. 2 nd Edition. 1 – 2 November 2007. Galaţi, Romania modes of the source culture but at relating the reader to modes of behaviour relevant to the context in the target culture. (Cf Croitoru 1999: 199-200) As many of the ‘extensive talk’ lexicalizations have strong evocative power, making a choice between the lexical item and its stylistic effect is the translator’s greatest challenge. Notes: 1 This fact has been confirmed by researchers on the Representative Vocabulary of present day Romanian. The less numerous and the worst represented in terms of usage are 112 lexical units (i.e. 4.33 %), which comply with the criteria of semantic wealth and derivation (S and D), mainly verbs and nouns, which express manner of speaking: fulgera, hârâi, mut, plesni, pocni, răbufni, răsufla, scârţâi, şuiera, toca, trăsni, trânti, trosni, turna, ţipa. (Cf. Marius Sala, Mihaela Bârlădeanu, Maria Iliescu, Liliana Macarie - 1988) 2 Cf. Dumitru Irimia (1986: 35) This proves that most of the notions that refer to or that have been generated through oral communication are mainly emotional or personal, and not predominantly intellectual or social, as the ones generated through writing. (Cf. Henry Wald 1983) 3 The Standard Field Theory has been repeatedly criticized for its subjective and speculative character. Yet, even critics seem to admit that some important semantic and psychological aspects have been revealed by the underlying general conception, which can be used as ”a tool for structuring information about the world...” (Grandy 1987: 276) On grounds of vagueness of the term ‘semantic field’, we shall predominantly use the term ‘paradigm’ throughout the paper. 4 According to John Lyons (1977: 268), a lexical field is a paradigmatically and syntagmatically structured subset of the vocabulary (or lexicon …). 5 Context will reveal not only the relationships of paradigmatically contrasting words (belonging just to one word class or part of speech), but also those of morphologically and semantically related word classes. 6 Bold type has been added. 7 Metaphors have been analyzed as linguistic expressions (lexically and grammatically), as ideas / concepts (with their propositional content and knowledge / conceptual structure), and as messages (with their pragmatic structure and function in terms of co-text and context). Hence the basic units of linguistic analysis are metaphor as clause, as proposition, and as utterance. (Cf. Gerard Steen, 1999, ‘Analyzing Metaphor in literature with Examples from William Wordswords’s “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud”,’ Poetics Today 20 (3), Tel Aviv, Retrieved on 26 November 2000, from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/poetics_today/v020/20.3 steen.html). 8 Cognitivists have mapped metaphorical linguistic expressions onto the conceptual system with a view to revealing their conceptual model or implicit internal structure. Most Root Analogies of the English language have been mapped by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980), Zoltán Kövecses (1986), Mark Johnson (1987), and Andrew Goatly (1997). 9 Deverbal adjectives or participles may not incorporate metaphor in their semantics. 10 Thomas Ballmer and Waltraud Brennenstuhl (1981) include MOSVs in the Emotion Model, which consists of several paradigms: Indicators of Emotional Process: blush, sob, stammer, stutter; Expression: blow up, burst out, cry, explode, moan, scream, shout, shriek, whimper; Announce Value Judgments: applaud, hail, salute, hiss, shout down, cheer loudly, shout to somebody; Hidden Appeal: bitch at, grumble, murmur, nag, sulk, whine, wrangle...; Open Appeal: cry, growl, grumble, shout, snap, sneer, spit, thunder at, yell. 11 Snell-Hornby’s term (1983: 171-173). 12 The first to approach the English and the Romanian MOSVs contrastively was Maria Teleagă (1999). Her verb classes focus on: pitch and intensity (to shout, to whisper; a striga, a şopti); speed and control of articulation (to gabble, to drawl, to stammer; a turui, a se bâlbâi); animal sounds (to bark, to coo; a mârâi, a ciripi), noises, movements (to rasp, to thunder, to shoot; a scrâşni, a tuna, a meliţa); other human sounds (to sigh, to snort; a cânta); evaluation of the time, coherence and content of speech (prattle, ramble; a flecări, a bălmăji); verbal interaction (to chat, to discuss, to quarrel; a conversa, a dezbate, a se certa). 13 Zwicky’s list (1969) includes sixteen English MOSVs: shout, scream, yell, holler, bellow, whisper, shriek, wail, lisp, hoot, growl, grunt, mumble, moan, howl, mutter and whine. 14 In a lexicographic study on animal sounds, Serghie Şutu (1921: 91-92) states that most of the MOSVs that express animal sounds are onomatopoeic and rely on man’s auditory capacity. However, verbs like a striga (i.e. ‘a face ca striga’) are no longer felt as metaphors. 15 This is the reason why they are less frequent in writing, except for reporting in fiction. 16 A good example is chirp - ciripi, which renders women’s speaking in ‘a cheerful high-pitched voice,’ (e.g. She always chirped ‘good morning’ to the people in the lounge.). The Romanian verb can also have a disphoric meaning in slang, i.e. ‘to tell a secret, to inform on/against sb.’ 17 Verb descriptivity can be either direct or indirect. Direct descriptivity “is limited to the modality of the action without any further implications,” when the modifier refers “directly to the act of speaking,” e.g. shout. Indirect descriptivity “can involve a value-judgement passed on to the agent’s character or can reveal background information on the verbal action,” as for example, when the modifier refers “to a participant (or participants) or a circumstance (or circumstances behind the action) or a combination of these,” e.g. cluck. Both types of descriptivity are usually present in a verb to various extents (e.g. scream). They have two functions: (a) to reveal the semantic structure of the verb, and (b) to “sharpen the distinctions when comparing lexemes, whether paradigmatically or contrastively.” (Snell-Hornby 1986: 26) It follows that MOSVs should be approached in terms of both direct and indirect descriptivity features, which concentrate on the focal area of the event rather than on its periphery. 18 It is the (in)transitivity of the VDic archlexeme which seems to convey a special character to MOSVs. 19 This structure is present in Mufwene’s examples too. 39
Page 1 and 2: “DUNAREA DE JOS” UNIVERSITY OF
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD 5 I. ENG
Page 5 and 6: FOREWORD This volume is the second
Page 7 and 8: TRANSLATION STUDIES: RETROSPECTIVE
Page 19 and 20: I. ENGLISH CULTURAL AND TRANSLATION
Page 25 and 26: TRANSLATING AND INTERPRETING FEMINI
Page 37: TRANSLATION STUDIES: RETROSPECTIVE
Page 89 and 90:
TRANSLATION STUDIES: RETROSPECTIVE
Page 91 and 92:
MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NOT
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
ABSTRACT CATEGORIES - A CHALLENGE F
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
ASPECTS OF TRANSLATING PASSIVE CONS
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
THE CONCEPT OF LIGHT IN TRANSLATING
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
LOOKING AT TIME AGAIN: A CONCEPTUAL
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
TRANSLATION STUDIES IN BUSINESS LIF
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATION Ioan-Luc
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
TRANSLATING ENGLISH LEGALESE EPONYM
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
FILMIC TRANSLATIONS OF CULTURE Mich
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
AN ANTI-PROJECT: RONGLISH ALIAS ROM
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
TRANSLATING CULTURE - SALMAN RUSHDI
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
TRANSLATION NORMS OR CONSTRAINTS Mi
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
CROSS-LINGUISTIC AND CROSS-CULTURAL
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
LES ANGLICISMES COMME TRADUCTIONS D
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
COMMENT AMÉLIORER LA COMPÉTENCE T
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
II. 3. ROMANIAN CULTURAL AND TRANSL
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
TRADIŢIE ŞI MODERNITATE ÎN CERCE
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
MODELE CULTURALE ŞI IMAGINI LITERA
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
ÎNTRE OGLINZI FRACTALE: „PELERIN
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
ZBOR DEASUPRA… POSTMODERNISMULUI
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
show all

translation studies - Facultatea de Litere - Dunarea de Jos

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?