Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository Iv - University of Salford Institutional Repository
precede and motivate responses. In simple words, the context of situation stimulates and anticipates the discourse that relates to it. From the above argument, it is apparent that a context-dependent text is a linguistic unit of communicative value. It is not simply a linguistic unit projected on the interpersonal communication system, as some critics of linguistics have alleged; for 'non-text' can be projected on the communicative system in order to explicate a purely non-linguistic notion. It may not seem inadvisable, in this context, to distinguish between covert and overt texts. A covert text, as it formally suggests, does not show up in its full entirety in linguistic expression. Like the top part of an iceberg, its surface structure captures the perception of the reader. Let us take the 'No Smoking' sign which we see in filling stations as an example of covert texts. The 'No smoking' sign is actually a warning to those who happen to be in the vicinity of filling stations against smoking. Due to the existence and storage of highly inflammable materials in filling stations, it is inadmissable for anyone to smoke lest a devastating fire should flare up. All these implications, which are commonly understood, are listed in the 'No smoking' sign, hence their being not explicitly stated. The overt text, on the other hand, is envisaged and perceived in its entirety in linguistic expression. Though in communicative discourse a text may consist ih a word, a sentence, or a sequence of sentences, it is preferable, not without justification as we shall find out later, to investigate long texts, for they obviate and resolve 54
elevant issues encountered in text-linguistics or discourse analysis. Unlike the covert text, in which a wealth of meanings and associations can be epitomized in a single word or phrase, the overt text normally consists of a longer sequence of sentences internally strung up to project a full, undivided and overall meaning. TEXT AND NON - TEXT Now, what are the criteria by which we can tell a text from a non- text? Before we attempt to answer this question, let us make a distinction between text and discourse. Despite the fact that there are different approaches to text and discourse, I feel more inclined to regard discourse as being more inclusive, in the sense that discourse comprehends all texts. A discourse possesses a broader spectrum than a text. Basically texts or discourses subsume all communicative utterances, whether written or spoken. As such, a text )1 is not simply a larger 'rank' than a sentence. It may be 01 Longer than a X single word. Likewise, it may be compiled of elements without sentence-status. What is even more important than text characterization is text actualization. The actualization of a text is, simply, the arrangement of textual elements to make up a text. The process of actualization can be explored in terms of the text- producer's capacity to organize the textual elements in such a way as to make the text both meaningful and intelligible to text-receivers. For, language operates thorough a set of systems and intersystems. These intersystems, which linguists generally call virtual systems, do not help people to communicate in socio-cultural interaction. People 55
- Page 15 and 16: translation quality assessment? Wor
- Page 17 and 18: elease Bayzantine prisoners in exch
- Page 19 and 20: should have a perfect knowledge of
- Page 21 and 22: translation was eventually cleared.
- Page 23 and 24: (2) The style and manner of writing
- Page 25 and 26: TL texts, and finally bring the rec
- Page 27 and 28: (3) Stylistic equivalence, where th
- Page 29 and 30: in two different languages cannot b
- Page 31 and 32: Neubert goes on to discuss the ways
- Page 33 and 34: Lotman (1976, pp153-96) argues that
- Page 35 and 36: (a) "the concept of translation equ
- Page 37 and 38: (structural) equivalences provided
- Page 39 and 40: equivalence obtaining between TT an
- Page 41 and 42: in various ways according to the ma
- Page 43 and 44: Roman Jakobson adds another three f
- Page 45 and 46: The communicative approach, of whic
- Page 47 and 48: claims, "free from the formal conta
- Page 49 and 50: to a certain system, to another sem
- Page 51 and 52: (3) RECEPTORS The author of a text
- Page 53 and 54: Messages are linguistically set to
- Page 55 and 56: p192) In immediate interpersonal co
- Page 57 and 58: concerning the communication situat
- Page 59 and 60: level of the individual sentence? B
- Page 61 and 62: In Europe, the linguistic analysis
- Page 63 and 64: demarcation lines between a sentenc
- Page 65: conditioned by the author's state o
- Page 69 and 70: features or goals with other texts
- Page 71 and 72: the source text, a step which comes
- Page 73 and 74: and confusing to obscure these diff
- Page 75 and 76: Translation is a relational concept
- Page 77 and 78: other replacement except what gramm
- Page 79 and 80: intersemiotic - springs from and po
- Page 81 and 82: the grammars of both SL and TL text
- Page 83 and 84: unbridgeable. Strategies to bridge
- Page 85 and 86: Moreover, the ability of both child
- Page 87 and 88: he understands the cultural pattern
- Page 89 and 90: to translation is unilaterally mean
- Page 91 and 92: to be considered translations? Is a
- Page 93 and 94: purposes. The transfer operation fo
- Page 95 and 96: In political discourses, however, p
- Page 97 and 98: language. Translations of medical,
- Page 99 and 100: are pragmatically a single text but
- Page 101 and 102: and 'relations' in terms of non-eva
- Page 103 and 104: dependent layers of pragmatic, semi
- Page 105 and 106: What matters more is the ways and m
- Page 107 and 108: (texte) is open, mobile, vibrating
- Page 109 and 110: Post-war linguists shifted their fo
- Page 111 and 112: personalities. He attributed this c
- Page 113 and 114: is interpretable form its language,
- Page 115 and 116: potential' of the source text be pr
elevant issues encountered in text-linguistics or discourse analysis.<br />
Unlike the covert text, in which a wealth <strong>of</strong> meanings and associations<br />
can be epitomized in a single word or phrase, the overt text normally<br />
consists <strong>of</strong> a longer sequence <strong>of</strong> sentences internally strung up to<br />
project a full, undivided and overall meaning.<br />
TEXT AND NON - TEXT<br />
Now, what are the criteria by which we can tell a text from a non-<br />
text? Before we attempt to answer this question, let us make a<br />
distinction between text and discourse. Despite the fact that there<br />
are different approaches to text and discourse, I feel more inclined<br />
to regard discourse as being more inclusive, in the sense that<br />
discourse comprehends all texts. A discourse possesses a broader<br />
spectrum than a text. Basically texts or discourses subsume all<br />
communicative utterances, whether written or spoken. As such, a text<br />
)1<br />
is not simply a larger 'rank' than a sentence. It may be 01 Longer than a<br />
X<br />
single word. Likewise, it may be compiled <strong>of</strong> elements without<br />
sentence-status. What is even more important than text<br />
characterization is text actualization. The actualization <strong>of</strong> a text<br />
is, simply, the arrangement <strong>of</strong> textual elements to make up a text. The<br />
process <strong>of</strong> actualization can be explored in terms <strong>of</strong> the text-<br />
producer's capacity to organize the textual elements in such a way as<br />
to make the text both meaningful and intelligible to text-receivers.<br />
For, language operates thorough a set <strong>of</strong> systems and intersystems.<br />
These intersystems, which linguists generally call virtual systems, do<br />
not help people to communicate in socio-cultural interaction. People<br />
55
Change language