1887
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2352-1805
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1813
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Im/politeness scholars have highlighted the significance of ideology in the use of im/politeness phenomena, as the very notion of im/politeness presupposes a mental filtering of discourse through preconceptions that already exist in the mind (Terkourafi 199920012005Mills 2003Culpeper 2011Kádár and Haugh 2013). The study aims at demonstrating how im/politeness can be manifested in two Greek versions of a dramatic dialogue that has its roots in the ancient theatre, where masks may be thought to undertake functions of face/identity formation in (im)politeness theory. The focus is on Eugene O’Neil’s dramatic trilogy (1931) and on two Greek stage translations of the play that are twenty-one years apart (1986 and 2007). The study adopts both a second/ first order (Grainger 2011, or etic/emic) approach to the data, to gain further insight into how im/politeness plays out in the target versions and also considers in/appropriateness of social behaviour (Locher and Watts 2008) to further understanding of aspects of the relational work enacted by the protagonist. The analysis accentuates the significance of the narrative or the point of view of the target versions of the play. Findings highlight the use of different im/politeness strategies in the translated interaction between the siblings, Orin and Lavinia, which affect respondents’ appropriateness judgements. Respondents appreciated a higher tension between intimacy and aggression as manifested in one of the two translations. The study underscores the value of translation data in im/politeness research by drawing attention to intra-cultural variation with regards to the use of im/politeness manifesting a different narrative/point of view (e.g. non/religious, non/allusive to the ancient theatre). Conversely, im/politeness research contributes to translation practice by showing that im/politeness options may exert influence on audience response.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ttmc.00043.bla
2020-02-17
2020-08-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arundale, Robert
    2004 “Constituting Face in Conversation: An Alternative to Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory.” Paper presented at the90th Conference of the National Communication Association, November 2004. Chicago IL, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2005 “Face as Relational and Interactional: Alternative Bases for Research on Face, Facework, and Politeness.” Paper presented at the9th International Pragmatics Conference, 10–15 July 2005. Riva del Garda, Italy.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2006 “Face as Relational and Interactional: A Communication Framework for Research on Face, Facework, and Politeness.” Journal of Politeness Research2 (2): 193–217. 10.1515/PR.2006.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Mona
    1992/2011In Other Words. A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203327579
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203327579 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brietzke, Zander
    2001The Aesthetics of Failure: Dynamic Structure in the Plays of Eugene O’Neil. Jefferson: McFarland.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1978/1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Catford, John Cunnison
    1965/2000A Linguistic Theory of Translation, London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics25 (3): 349–367. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  9. 1998 “(Im)Politeness in Dramatic Dialogue.” InExploring the Language of Drama: from Text to Context, ed. byJonathan Culpeper, Mick Short, and Peter Verdonk, 83–95. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2005 “Impoliteness and The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (1): 35–72. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2009 “Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence: Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report”, RES-063-27-0015. Swindon: ESRC.
  12. 2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  13. Culpeper, Jonathan, Derek Bousfield, and Anne Wichmann
    2003 “Impoliteness Revisited: With Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics35 (10–11): 1545–1579. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00118‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 [Google Scholar]
  14. Eldredge, Sears A.
    1996Mask Improvisation for Actor Training and Performance: The Compelling Image. Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Giardini, Francesca, and Rosaria Conte
    2015 “Revenge and Conflict: Social and Cognitive Aspects.” InConflict and Multimodal Communication, ed. byFrancesca D’Errico, Isabella Poggi, Alessandro Vinciarelli, and Laura Vincze, 71–89. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑14081‑0_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14081-0_4 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goffman, Erving
    1967 [1955] “On Face-Work.” InInteraction Ritual: Essays on Face-to- Face Behavior, ed. byE. Goffman, 5–45. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Grainger, Karen
    2011 “‘First Order’ and ‘Second Order’ Politeness: Institutional and Intercultural Contexts.” InDiscursive Approaches to Politeness, 167–188. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110238679.167.
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238679.167 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jucker, Andreas, and Larssyn Staley
    2017 “(Im)politeness and Developments in Methodology.” InThe Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ed. byJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 413–429. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_16
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_16 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kádár, Dániel Zoltán, and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kiraly, Donald C.
    1997 “Think-aloud Protocols and the Construction of a Professional Translator Self-concept.” InCognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. byJoseph. H. Danks, Gregory M. Shreve, Stephen B. Fountain, and Michael K. McBeath, 137–160. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kouzeli, Lambrini ([Koυζέλη, Λαμπρινή]
    2016 “Πέθανε ο μεταφραστής των έργων του Σαίξπηρ Eρρίκος Μπελιές [Errikos Belies, the translator of Shakespeare’s works passed away].” Το Βήμα20April 2016 AccessedAugust 17, 2019. https://www.tovima.gr/2016/04/19/culture/pethane-o-metafrastis-twn-ergwn-toy-saikspir-errikos-mpelies/
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ley, Graham
    2007A Short Introduction to the Ancient Greek Theatre. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226154671.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226154671.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Locher, Miriam A.
    2004Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110926552
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926552 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2006Advice Online: Advice-Giving in an American Internet Health Column. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.149
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.149 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2008 “Relational Work, Politeness and Identity Construction.” InHandbook of Applied Linguistics. Volume2: Interpersonal Communication, ed. byGerd Antos, Eija Ventola, and Tilo Weber, 509–540. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Locher, Miriam A., and Richard J. Watts
    2008 “Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behavior.” InImpoliteness in Language – Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. byDerek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 77–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Mills, Sara
    2003Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  28. McIntyre, Dan
    2006Point of View in Plays: A Cognitive Stylistic Approach to Viewpoint in Drama and Other Text-Types. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Napier, David A.
    1986Masks, Transformation, and Paradox. California: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nord, Christiane
    1988Textanalyse und Übersetzen: Theoretische Grundlagen, Methode und didaktische Anwendung einer übersetzungsrelevanten Textanalyse. Heidelberg: J. Groos, translated byChristiane Nord and Penelope Sparrow 2005 Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Richards, Jeffrey H., and Heather S. Nathans
    2014The Oxford Handbook of American Drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199731497.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199731497.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne W. Scollon
    2001Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Segal, Erwin M.
    1995 “Narrative Comprehension and the Role of Deictic Shift Theory.” InDeixis in Narrative – A Cognitive Science Perspective, ed. byJudith F. Duchan, Gail A. Bruder, and Lynne E. Hewitt, 3–17. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sifianou, Maria
    2011 “On the Concept of Face and Politeness.” InPoliteness Across Cultures, ed. byFrancesca Bargiela Chiappini, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 42–58. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230305939_3
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230305939_3 [Google Scholar]
  35. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    2005 “(Im)Politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpacking their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (1): 95–119. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95 [Google Scholar]
  36. Terkourafi, Marina
    1999 “Frames for Politeness: A Case Study.” Pragmatics9 (1): 97–117. 10.1075/prag.9.1.10ter
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.10ter [Google Scholar]
  37. 2001 Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A Frame-Based Approach. PhD diss.University of Cambridge.
  38. 2005 “Beyond the Micro-Level in Politeness Research.” Journal of Politeness Research1 (2): 237–262. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2007 “Toward a Universal Notion of Face for a Universal Notion of Co-operation.” InExplorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects, ed. byKecskes, Istvan, and Laurence Horn, 307–338. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2008 “Toward a Unified Theory of Politeness, Impoliteness and Rudeness.” InImpoliteness in Interaction: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. byDerek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 45–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet
    1958/1977Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais: méthode de traduction, Paris: Didier, translated and edited byJuan C. Sager, and Marie-Josée Hamel 1995 Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wartenberg, Thomas E.
    1990The Forms of Power. From Domination to Transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Watts, Richard J.
    2005 “Linguistic Politeness and Politic Verbal Behavior: Reconsidering Claims for Universality.” InPoliteness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice, ed. byRichard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich (2nd revised and expanded edition), 43–70. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110199819.1.43
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819.1.43 [Google Scholar]
  44. Wenger, Etienne
    1998Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803932
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 [Google Scholar]
  45. ST O’Neil, E.
    1931Mourning Becomes Electra. AccessedNovember 28, 2018gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400141h.html
    [Google Scholar]
  46. TTa Ο’Νηλ, Ευγένιος
    TTa Ο’Νηλ, Ευγένιος 1986Το πένθος ταιριάζει στην Ηλέκτρα: ο γυρισμός – οι κυνηγημένοι – οι στοιχειωμένοι. Μεταφρ. Δέσπω Διαμαντίδου [Mourning suits Electra: the Come Back – The Hunted – The Haunted, translated by Despo Diamantidou] Αθήνα: Δωδώνη.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. TTb Ο’Νηλ, Ευγένιος
    TTb Ο’Νηλ, Ευγένιος 2007Το πένθος ταιριάζει στην Ηλέκτρα. Μεταφρ. Ερρίκος Μπελιές [Mourning suits Electra, translated by Errikos Belies]. Αθήνα: Κέδρος.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ttmc.00043.bla
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ttmc.00043.bla
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): aggression-intimacy , ancient Greek drama , im/politeness and narrative/point of view
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