Language Research

Toward a Cognitive Taxonomy for Explicitating Shifts in Translation

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Soheil Daneshzadeh 1
Ali Afkhami 2
Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari 3

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran

2 Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Dramotic Art University of Tehran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jolr.2018.69532
Abstract
In this paper, we attempt to present an alternative approach to the concept of translational explicitaion. First, we shortly evaluate the validity of a fundamental presupposition widespread in explicitation research according to which, if converting A to B is an instance of explicitation, then converting B to A cannot have an explicitating effect. Then we introduce explicitation in translation as a pragmatic decision made by the translator to reduce processual effort on the part of target language audience and to provide an easier and faster access to the “meaning” of the text. Then, within the framework of construal operations (Croft Cruse, 2004), we propose a new taxonomy of explicitational mechanisms. These mechanisms change the way in which a construal operation is applied in source text and bring about construals in the target text which provide easier access to what the translator construes as the gist of the usage-event. All four construal operations, i.e., attention, judgment, perspective and constitution can be the locus of these explicitating mechanisms.

Keywords

explicitation
Translation
construal operations
explicitating mechanisms
source text
target text
Abdul Fattah, A. 2010. A corpus – based study of conjunctive, explicitation in Arabic translated and nontranslated texts. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester.
Becher, V. 2011. Explicitation and implicitation in translation. A corpus-based study of English-German and German-English translations of business texts. Doctoral dissertation. Hamburg.
Croft, W. 2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans and S. Pourcel (eds.). New directions in cognitive linguistics (395-420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Croft, W. 2015. Force dynamics and directed chang in event lexicalization and argument realization. In R.G. de Almeida and C. Manouilidou (eds.). Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing (103-30). New York: Springer.
Croft, W. & Cruse, D.A. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. 2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans and S. Pourcel (eds.). New directions in Cognitive Linguistics, (395-420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fillmore, C.J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6: 222-54.
House, J. 2004. Explicitness in discourse across languages. In J. House, W. Koller & K. Schubert (eds.). Neue Perspektiven in der Übersetzungs – und Dolmetschwissenschaft (185–208). Bochum: AKS.
Klaudy, K. & K. Károly. 2003. Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation. Across Languages and Cultures 6(1): 13-28.
Kruger, R. 2014. Exploting the interface between scientific and technical translation and cognitive linguistic the case of explicitation and implicitation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Salford.
Kuno, S. & E. Kaburaki.1977. Empathy & syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 627-72.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson, 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 
Lambrecht, K. 1994.  Information structure and sentence form.  Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, vol. 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundation of cognitive grammer, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. 2000. Grammer and conceptualization. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive grammer: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Panther, K. & L. Thornburg. 1999. The potentiality for actuallity metonymy in English and Hungarian. In K.U. Panther & G. Radden (eds.). Metonymy in Language and Though (333-359). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Panther, K. & L. Thornburg. 2003. The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. Paper presented at: the 8th International Cognitive Linguistic Conference,  20-25 June,  the University of La Rioja, Logrono, Spain..
Schmid, M.S. 1999. Translating the elusive: marked word order and subjectivity in English-German translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamines.
Seguinot, C. 1988. Pragmatic and the explicitation hypothesis. Traduction, Terminology and Redaction. 1 (2): 106-113.
Talmy, L. 1988. Force dynamic in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12:49-100.
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: concept structuring systems. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Vinay,J. P., & J. Darbelnet,1958/1977. Stylistque ompare du francais et de l’anglais: Methode de traduction. Montreal: Beauchemin, translated and edited by J. C. Sager and M. J. Hamel (1995) as Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation. Amesterdam: John Benjamins.
Weissbrod, R. 1992. Explicitation in translations of prose-fiction from English to Hebrew as a function of norms. Multilingua 11(2): 153-171.
Language Research
Volume 9, Issue 2
January 2019
Pages 129-150

  • Receive Date 30 January 2018
  • Revise Date 11 March 2018
  • Accept Date 14 April 2018

Home

Contact Us