1887
Volume 69, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article explores which areas of explicature identification (i.e., disambiguation, reference resolution, saturation, free enrichment, and ad hoc concept constructions) were more attended to in Arabic-English translation. Twenty translators were asked to render from one language into another 50 sentences whose logical form could be enriched by explicatures. Translators were found to attend more to the effects of disambiguation and reference resolution. A demarcation line was drawn between explicatures that called for completing overt logical forms (disambiguation and reference resolution) and those that prompted calculating pragmatic competence and meta-linguistic knowledge (saturation, free enrichment, and ad hoc concept constructions). Using relevance theory as a framework of analysis, we propose that completing overt logical forms is more rewarding and less costly for translators than computing pragmatic competence and meta-linguistic knowledge. The figures corroborated this assumption, which showed that explicature observance was positively correlated with educational attainment and years of experience.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00319.alj
2023-03-30
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Jarrah, Rasheed, Ahmad Abu-Dalu, and Hisham Obiedat
    2018 “Translation of Strategic Ambiguity: A Relevance-Theoretic Analysis.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics541: 1–35. 10.1515/psicl‑2018‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2018-0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barsalou, Lawrence
    1983 “Ad hoc Categories.” Memory and Cognition111: 211–227. 10.3758/BF03196968
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968 [Google Scholar]
  3. Becher, Viktor
    2010 “Abandoning the Notion of ‘Translation-Inherent’ Explicitation: Against a Dogma of Translation Studies.” Across Languages and Cultures111: 1–25. 10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.11.2010.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  4. Besbes, Khaled
    2013 “The Relevance of Relevance Theory to the Teaching of Literary Translation to Speakers of Arabic Language.” International Journal of Arabic and English Studies141: 71–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blakemore, Diane
    1995 “Relevance Theory.” InHandbook of Pragmatics, edited byJef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert, 443–452. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Buchstaller, Isabelle. and Khattab, Ghada
    2013 “Population Samples.” InResearch Methods in Linguistics, edited byRobert J. Podesva and Devyani Sharma, 74–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Carston, Robyn
    2000 “Explicature and Semantics.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics. 121: 1–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2008Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Malden: Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013 “Word Meaning, What Is Said and Explicature.” InWhat Is Said and What Is Not: The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, edited byCarlo Penco and Filippo Domaneschi, 175–203. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2017 Pragmatics and Semantics. InThe Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, edited byYan Huang, 453–472. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. de Waard, Jan, and Eugene A. Nida
    1986From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. Nashville: Nelson.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Díaz-Pérez, Francisco
    2013 “The Translation of Wordplay from the Perspective of Relevance Theory: Translating Sexual Puns in Two Shakespearian Tragedies into Galician and Spanish.” Meta581: 279–302. 10.7202/1024175ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1024175ar [Google Scholar]
  13. 2014 “Relevance Theory and Translation: Translating Puns in Spanish Film Titles into English.” Journal of Pragmatics701: 108–129. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2015 “From the Other Side of the Looking Glass: A Cognitive Pragmatic Account of Translating Lewis Carroll.” InYearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, edited byJesús Romero-Trillo, 163–194. Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Grice, Herbert P.
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, edited byPeter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gutt, Ernst-August
    1991Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, 1st ed.Oxford: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2000Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, 2nd ed.Oxford: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2010Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, 3rd ed. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hall, Alison
    2017 “Lexical Pragmatics, Explicature and Ad Hoc Concepts.” InSemantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, edited byIlse Depraetere and Raphael Salkie, 85–100. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_6 [Google Scholar]
  20. Huang, Yan
    2000Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2007Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2014Pragmatics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jing, He
    2010 “The Translation of English and Chinese Puns from the Perspective of Relevance Theory.” JosTrans: Journal of Specialised Translation131: 81–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kamyanets, Angela
    2017 “Translating Irony in Media Texts: A Relevance Theory Perspective.” Across Languages and Cultures181: 261–278. 10.1556/084.2017.18.2.5
    https://doi.org/10.1556/084.2017.18.2.5 [Google Scholar]
  25. Leitch, Shirley, and Sally Davenport
    2002 “Strategic Ambiguity in Communicating Public Sector Change.” Journal of Communication Management71: 129–139. 10.1108/13632540310807340
    https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540310807340 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1990 “Interactional Biases in Human Thinking.” Working Paper No. 3, Project Group Cognitive Anthropology. Reprinted asLevinson, Stephen C. 1995 “Interaction Biases in Human Thinking.” InSocial Intelligence and Interaction, edited byEsther N. Goody, 221–260. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621710.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621710.014 [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, Xuemei
    2019 “Research on Metaphor Translation from the Perspective of Relevance Theory.” InProceedings of the 2019 International Linguistics, Education and Literature Conference, Changsha, China, 20–21 October 2019, 193–196.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Matsui, Tomoko
    2000Bridging and Relevance. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.76
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.76 [Google Scholar]
  29. De Metsenaere, Hinde, and Vandepitte, Sonia
    2017 “Towards a Theoretical Foundation for Explicitation and Implicitation.” Trans-kom101: 385–419.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Murtisari, Elisabet Titik
    2013 “A Relevance-Based Framework for Explicitation and Implicitation: An Alternative Typology.” Trans-kom61: 315–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Recanati, François
    1993 “What Is Said.” Synthese1281: 75–91. 10.1023/A:1010383405105
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010383405105 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2002 “Does Linguistic Communication Rest on Inference?” Mind and Language171: 105–126. 10.1111/1468‑0017.00191
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00191 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2004aLiteral Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2004b “‘What is Said’ and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction.” InThe Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction, edited byClaudia Bianchi, 45–64. Stanford: CSLI Publications, Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sanderson, John
    2009 “Strategies for the Dubbing of Puns with One Visual Semantic Layer.” InNew Trends in Audiovisual Translation, edited byJorge Díaz-Cintas, 123–132. Bristol, Buffalo, and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691552‑011
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691552-011 [Google Scholar]
  36. Scollon, Ron
    1995 “Plagiarism and Ideology: Identity in Intercultural Discourse.” Language in Society241: 1–28‏. 10.1017/S0047404500018388
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500018388 [Google Scholar]
  37. Scollon, Ron, and Suzie Scollon
    1995Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Smith, Kevin Gary
    2000 “Bible Translation and Relevance Theory: The Translation of Titus.” Ph.D. diss., University of Stellenbosch.
  39. Smith, Kevin
    2002 “Translation as Secondary Communication. The Relevance Theory Perspective of Ernst-August Gutt.” Acta Theologica21: 107–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition, vol.1421. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 1987 “Presumptions of Relevance.” Behavioural and Brain Sciences101: 736–53. 10.1017/S0140525X00055618
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00055618 [Google Scholar]
  42. 1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed.Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Taguchi, Naoko
    2009Pragmatic Competence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218558
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218558 [Google Scholar]
  44. Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet
    1958Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais [Comparative stylistics between French and English]. Paris: Didier.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Walton, Douglas
    1995A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    1993 “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua901: 1–25. 10.1016/0024‑3841(93)90058‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2002 “Relevance Theory.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, edited byLawrence Horn and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2012Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
  49. Yus, Francisco
    2006 Relevance Theory. InEncyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, edited byKeith Brown, 512–519. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00313‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00313-8 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2012 “Relevance, Humor, and Translation.” InRelevance Theory: More than Understanding, edited byEwa Walaszewska and Agnieszka Piskorska, 117–145. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Zhonggang, Sang
    2006 “A Relevance Theory Perspective on Translating the Implicit Information in Literary Texts.” Journal of Translation2 (2): 43–60. 10.54395/jot‑xdhen
    https://doi.org/10.54395/jot-xdhen [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00319.alj
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/babel.00319.alj
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): explicature; logical form; relevance theory; translation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error