1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Languages in Contrast
  4. Volume 20, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Recent research on deictic elements has made extensive use of translation corpora to demonstrate that asymmetries between translational paradigms signal subtle contrasts from a systemic and pragmatic perspective. The purpose of the present study is to identify translation correspondences of the English spatial demonstrative in Lithuanian and to discuss the contrastive features within the analytical framework of translational explicitation and implicitation. The results indicate that in the prototypical situational usage there is a high degree of correspondence between and its Lithuanian translation, while textual uses demonstrate low formal equivalence. A tendency to implicitate stems from the null subject construction and object ellipsis in Lithuanian and is also a result of the availability of facultative deictic words in Lithuanian. The apparent systemic difference between the deictic systems of English and Lithuanian indicates a tendency towards optional implicitation and stylistic variation in literary translation.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.18007.bar
2019-05-17
2023-03-31

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lic.18007.bar
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ambrazas, V.
    (ed) 1997 Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barlow, M.
    2008 ParaConc and Parallel Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. Houston: Athelstan Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Becher, V.
    2010 Differences in the Use of Deictic Expressions in English and German texts. Linguistics48(6): 1309–1342. 10.1515/ling.2010.042
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.042 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2011 Explicitation and Implicitation in Translation. A Corpus-based Study of English-German and German-English Translations of Business Texts. PhD thesis, University of Hamburg.
  5. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.
    (eds) 1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blum-Kulka, S.
    1986 Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Tanslation. InInterlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Diessel, H.
    1999 Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2013 Is There a Deictic Frame of Reference?InSpace in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives, P. Auer, M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock and B. Szmrecsanyi (eds), 687–692. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110312027.687
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110312027.687 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C. J.
    1971 Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. University of California, Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Goethals, P.
    2007 Corpus-driven Hypothesis Generation in Translation Studies, Contrastive Linguistics and Text Linguistics: A Case Study of Demonstratives in Spanish and Dutch Parallel Texts. Belgian Journal of Linguistics21: 87–104. 10.1075/bjl.21.07goe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.21.07goe [Google Scholar]
  11. 2013 Demonstratives on the Move: What Translational Shifts Tell us about Demonstrative Determiners and Definite Articles in Spanish and Dutch. Linguistics51(3): 517–553. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0019 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hasselgård, H.
    2004 Spatial Linking in English and Norwegian. InTranslation and Corpora, K. Aijmer and H. Hasselgård (eds), 163–188. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2006 Not Now – on Non-correspondence between the Cognate Adverbs now and nå. Pragmatic Markers in Contrast2: 93–114.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Himmelmann, N. P.
    1996 Demonstratives in Narrative Discourse: a Taxonomy of Universal Uses. InStudies in Anaphora, B. Fox (ed), 205–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.08him
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.08him [Google Scholar]
  15. Judžentytė, G.
    2017 Spatial Deixis in Lithuanian: Demonstrative Pronouns. InLanguage: Meaning and Form 8. Grammatical and Lexical Variance in Language System, A. Kalnača and I. Lokmane (eds), 173–193. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Károly, K.
    2017 Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.134
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.134 [Google Scholar]
  17. Klaudy, K.
    2009 Explicitation. InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, M. Baker and G. Saldanha (eds), 104–108. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Klaudy, K. and Károly, K.
    2005 Implicitation in Translation: Empirical Evidence for Operational Asymmetry in Translation. Across Languages and Cultures6(1): 13–28. 10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2
     https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.6.2005.1.2 [Google Scholar]
  19. Krein-Kühle, M.
    2002 Cohesion and Coherence in Technical Translation: The Case of Demonstrative Reference. InLinguistics and Translation Studies, L. Van Vaerenbergh (ed), 41–53. Antwerpen: Hogeschool Antwerpen.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kryk, B.
    1987 On Deixis in English and Polish: the Role of Demonstrative Pronouns. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Levinson, S. C.
    1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2004 Deixis. InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, L. R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lyons, J.
    1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Pavesi, M.
    2013 This and That in the Language of Film. Dubbing: a Corpus-Based Analysis. Meta58(1): 103–133. 10.7202/1023812ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1023812ar [Google Scholar]
  25. 2015 The Translation of Conversation and Film Dubbing as a Discovery Procedure: Evidence from Demonstratives. InLanguage across Languages – New Perspectives on Translation, E. Miola and P. Ramat (eds), 143–172. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Pym, A.
    2010 Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Remys, E.
    2001 Review of Modern Lithuanian Grammar. Chicago: Lithuanian Research Studies Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ribera, C. J. and Cuenca, M. J.
    2013 Use and Translation of Demonstratives in Fiction: a Contrastive Approach (English-Catalan). Catalan Review: International Journal of Catalan Culture27: 27–49. 10.3828/CATR.27.1.27
     https://doi.org/10.3828/CATR.27.1.27 [Google Scholar]
  29. Rosinas, A.
    1996 Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai: funkcijos ir semantika. [Pronouns in Standard Lithuanian: Functions and Semantics]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir Enciklopediju̧ Leidykla.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2009 Baltų kalbų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra: sinchronija ir diachronija. [Semantic and Morphological Structure of Pronouns in the Baltic Languages: Synchrony and Diachrony]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Stirling, L. and Huddleston, R.
    2002 Deixis and Anaphora. InThe Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, R. Huddleston and G. K. Pullum (eds), 1449–1564. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.018 [Google Scholar]
  32. Valeckienė, A.
    1998 Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika [Functional Grammar of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Vanderbauwhede, G., Desmet, P. and Lauwers, P.
    2011 The Shifting of the Demonstrative Determiner in French and Dutch in Parallel Corpora: From Translation Mechanisms to Structural Differences. Meta56(2): 443–464. 10.7202/1006186ar
     https://doi.org/10.7202/1006186ar [Google Scholar]
  34. Vinay, J. P. and Darbelnet, J.
    1958/2000 A Methodology for Translation. InThe Translation Studies Reader, L. Venuti (ed), 84–93. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Vondřička, P.
    2016 InterText Editor v1.5 Comprehensive Guide. Institute of the Czech National Corpus, Charles University.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Wu, Y.
    2004 Spatial Demonstratives in English and Chinese: Text and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.126
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.126 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.18007.bar
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): demonstratives; English/Lithuanian; explicitation; implicitation; spatial deixis

Most Cited

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