ВУЗ: Не указан
Категория: Не указан
Дисциплина: Не указана
Добавлен: 06.07.2019
Просмотров: 475
Скачиваний: 1
Motivated disobedience of any Maxim within the Cooperative Principle, then, gives rise to implicatures. Obeying the maxims, however, does not necessarily guarantee that implied meanings will not be generated. “Implying” as opposed to “explicitly stating” is possible even when a given maxim is adhered to, provided such adherence is opted for in contexts where non-adherence would be the expected norm. One such context may be illustrated by the following example from Act I of Bernard Shaw’s You Never Can Tell (1898), analysed in Leech [Leech, 1992].
Dentist : ... Why didn't you let me give you gas?
Young Lady: Because you said it would be five shillings extra.
Dentist: [shocked] Oh, don't say that It makes me feel as if I had hurt you for the sake of five shillings.
Young Lady: [with cool insolence] Well, so you have.
Typical of Dolly's bluntness of character, the Maxim of Quality is meticulously adhered to and truth is valued no matter what. It is speaking the truth when a white lie would do, however, that in its own way constitutes a flouting of some principle or other giving rise to an implicature all the same. What is being flouted here are norms of politeness, which sanction flouting Quality as a norm and deem not doing so a deviation from acceptable social behaviour [Leech, 1992].
This and similar examples raise important questions for a translation theory that seeks to confront cross-cultural pragmatics and account for the problems thrown up by this particular area of language use. In translating a play like Shaw’s into Arabic or Japanese, for example, the hypothesis widely accepted in pragmatically-oriented theories of translation is that the more language-bound the rules governing the performance of any indirect speech act, the lower the degree of translatability [Blum-Kulka, 1981].
Relevance in translation
Gutt [Gutt, 1991] tries to describe translation in terms of a general theory of human communication. This builds on the basic premise that the ability of human beings to infer what is meant may be accounted for in terms of observing the principle of relevance, defined as achieving maximum benefit at minimum processing cost. Two basic kinds of language use are distinguished: descriptive use, involving reference only to entities in the real world, and interpretive use, involving reference to entities as well as to thoughts and expressions of thought. Gutt suggests that translation is an instance of interpretive use and that translations seek to resemble their originals interpretively. Translation is constrained by the principle of relevance in the sense that
If we ask in what respects the intended interpretation of the translation should resemble the original, the answer is: in respects that make it adequately relevant to the audience - that is, that offer adequate contextual effects; if we ask how the translation should be expressed, the answer is: it should be expressed in such a manner that it yields the intended interpretation without putting the audience to unnecessary processing effort [Gutt, 1991].
Serious reservations about the value of relevance theory in translation have been expressed by a number of scholars (e.g. Tirkkonen-Condit, Malmkjasr, Thomas) on a number of grounds, including the vexed question of how and by whom the various “rankings of relevance” are to be determined in particular contexts of translation. But, perhaps a more relevant objection to Gutt’s proposals relates to the contribution of skopos theory, which Gutt seems to undervalue. According to this theory, translations have sets of hierarchically-ordered purposes (skopoi). It is these purposes, one variant of which may be the instructions attached to a request for translation, that determine the translation procedures and ultimately the process itself [Reiss and Vermeer, 1984]. Tirkkonen-Condit [Tirkkonen-Condit, 1992] questions Gutt's reliance on a general principle of relevance and asks: by what criteria, other than hierarchization of purposes, can a translator decide what must be retained and what can be legitimately sacrificed? Skopoi, together with culture-specific conventions recognized by a given language community, are now seen as an important framework within which what readers expect of a translation is to be determined, making it incumbent on the translator to be loyal to the target audience by telling them why and how their expectations are defied when they are [Nord, 1991].
1.6. Cognitive Aspects of Translation:
Decision Making in Translation
A decision problem occurs when one is faced with an issue which demands some form of choice. Decision making is the cognitive process of selecting a course of action from among multiple alternatives. When decision making is studied four questions are usually being explored: What determines which alternatives are considered? What determines the expectations about consequences? How are decision maker preferences created and evoked? What is the decision rule that is used? [March, 1994]
Bush stresses that translation is “a fruit of thousands of decisions, large and small, and of creative activity on the part of the translator” [Bush, 2005]. Translation involves the transfer of meaning from a text in one language into in another. This transfer constitutes a mental process which relies on sophisticated information processing skills. All text processing is a matter of problem solving and decision making. Translator encounters problems of comprehension, interpretation and expression and evolve strategies for coping with them.
In order to solve a problem, a human being must basically possess two types of knowledge: declarative and procedural. Declarative knowledge means that a person has available in his/her memory some pool of stored knowledge and experience. Procedural knowledge means that human beings have access to strategic knowledge: they know or ought to know in which situations they must apply which operative moves to attain the desired goal [Ryle, 1949].
Wilss stresses that in translation, the decision making issue is a particularly complex, because translation is essentially a derived activity. Derived means that the purpose of a translation is not the creation of an original text, but the transformation of a primary text into a secondary text [Wilss, 2005]. But little attention has been paid to the analysis of the cognitive processes of decision making in translation [Kalnychenko, Podminigin, 2005]. This paper aims at considering the approaches to the analysis of decision making in translation, the issues faced by researchers, and at outlining the research perspectives.
The processes of information processing of translators and interpreters differ from other language users because they operate under a different set of constraints. Three sets of constraints are particularly significant in the context of translation:
-
task, the activity which the translator is required to carry out and the context in which this activity takes place;
-
text, the linguistic and discoursal structure of the source text;
-
translator, the linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge and skills of the person carrying out the translation.
Bells stresses that each of these constraints functions as an input condition to the process, and since they do not draw on the same cognitive resources, they exert different influences on the way the process functions. The task, for example, is carried out within severe time constraints, and these are different for translators and interpreters. Following United Nations norms of six to eight pages of translation per day, the professional translator typically produces about five words per minute or 300 words per hour. The simultaneous interpreter, in contrast, has to respond instantly to the incoming spoken text, typically at a rate some 30 times faster than the translator, i.e. 150 words per minute or 9000 words per hour. In addition the intermediate place of consecutive interpreting should be recognized, where the interpreter takes notes and only interprets at the end of the original speaker’s contribution [Bells, 2005].
The lexical and stylistic structure of the source text poses further constraints on the translator. Bells points out that monolinguals and bilinguals process texts rather differently. The monolingual communicator listens or reads for comprehension, while the translator listens or reads for translation. Both are engaged in gathering information from the text but, for the monolingual, that is the primary goal. The translator, on the other hand, has to be able to recognize translation-relevant elements of the text which may constitute problems or which signal significant variables [Bells, 2005].
The roles of the two as receivers of messages also differ. The monolingual is essentially sender-oriented, paying attention to the speaker/writer’s message in order to respond to it. The translator, on the other hand, is essentially receiver-oriented, paying attention to the speaker/writer’s message in order to re-transmit it to the receivers of the target text, and therefore controlling, personal reactions to the message [Seleskovich, 1978].
In discussing an issue of decision making in translation Wilss pays particular attention to context. He distinguishes between macrocontext and microcontext. In order to effect decisions at the level of macrocontext, a translator needs a strategy that is related to the totality of the text to be translated: who says what to whom, with what communicative intention, in what spatio-temporal setting, with what linguistic means. Handling microcontext, according to Wilss, particularly in literal texts, often necessitates time-consuming formulation and reformulation efforts. Complicating factors include singular phenomena of the source text, such as semantic vagueness, complex syntax, intricate rhetorical strategies, theme/rheme distribution, central vs. peripheral information, metaphors, wordplay, allusions, irony, lack of coherence, morphological idiosyncrasies or neologisms, adjective/noun collocations, prepositional phrases, string compounds, cultural lacunae [Wilss, 2005].
The complexity of cognitive processes of decision making in translation, and the difficulty of observing them may explain the fact that little attention has been paid to the analysis of the cognitive processes of decision making in translation.
Levi tried to apply the game theory to decision making in translation. Game theory proposes to study the behaviour of two or more people with conflicting interests, as in a competitive game. The simplest model is the two-person, zero-sum game with perfect information and optimal strategy. Few games and lifeworld situations are zero-sum with perfect information. Most players and social actors aim for optimal strategies on the basis of imperfect information. Players arrive at this optimal strategy by way of a pay-off matrix, a formal device that lists the alternatives and strategies available to players and allows them to evaluate outcomes so that they can choose the optimal strategy. Von Neumann advanced the minimax theorem in which he proved that players could minimize the maximum loss other players could inflict on them. The most basic formulation of the theorem was that in a finite, two-person, zero-sum game, an average return known by the letter V is always guaranteed for one of the players, assuming that both players are playing rationally. Levi suggested a novel application of minimax solutions to the translator’s task. He argued that “translation theory tends to be normative, to instruct translators on the optimal solution; actual translation work is pragmatic: the translator resolves for one of the possible solutions which promises a maximum of effect with a minimum of effort. Levy defines a translation problem as a situation, and defines a number of instructions for dealing with these situations. According to Levi there are two types of instruction: definitional and selective. Definitional instructions are the semantic instructions that define the paradigm, i.e. the class of possible solutions to a situation. The second instruction, which is selective, directs the choice among the alternatives; this instruction depends crucially on context [Cronin 2005:91]. The games translators play, the translation variants, depend on the alternatives chosen. Levy describes the relationship between the definitional and the selective instructions in the following manner: ”from the set of alternatives circumscribed by the definitional instruction, a subset is eliminated by the selective instruction, which in turn becomes the definitional instruction of this subset, and so on, till a one-member paradigm is reached” [Levy, 1967].
However, Cronin points out to three shortcomings of Levy’s theory: the assumption that players or translators act rationally is constantly contradicted by the affective, ideological and physiological factors that determine translation choice; Levy’s theory operates at a level of generality that does not always prove illuminating at the level of translation detail; and the issue of imperfect information is not properly addressed [Cronin, 2005].
Wallsten has shown that the outcomes and contingencies associated with a particular choice can be referred to a decision “frame”, and that it is often possible to frame a given decision problem in more than one way. The final decision depends on a host of factors, such as adequate knowledge bases, a sufficiently detailed characterization of the problem requiring decision-making strategies, and the individual’s own preferences or value system [Wallsten, 1980].
The frames used by decision makers are part of their conscious and unconscious repertoires. In part they are encased in early individual experiences that shape individual approaches to problems. In part they are responsive to the particular sequence of decision situations that arise. There is a tendency for frames to persist over a sequence of situations. Recently used frames hold a privileged position, in part because they are more or less automatically evoked in a subsequent situation. In addition, past attention strengthens both a decision maker’s skills in using a frame and the ease of justifying action to others within the frame [March, 1994].
Esakova applied the frame analysis to considering the question of culture preservation in translation, and her conclusion is that we can learn another culture only by comparing the source text with the target text [Esakova, 2002].
Application of the frame analysis to the issues of decision making in translation can be referred to product-based studies which proceed from a comparative analysis of source and target texts and use textual differences uncovered during the analysis as a means of accessing indirectly the mental processes employed during translation.
But Wilss points out that we need the information not only on how translators perform in general but also on how they perform in a specific translation situation with all its inherent array of complex factors [Wilss, 2005]. In order to answer those questions, think-aloud protocols have been employed, particularly with students of translation. In the 1980s, experimental methods began to be borrowed from psychology to gain access to what goes on in the translator’s mind. The most popular of these has been the “think-aloud” (or “thinking-aloud”) method, which involves asking a translator to translate a text and, at the same time, to verbalize as much of his or her thoughts as possible. Subjects involved in such experiments need special training to enable them to verbalize freely instead of analyzing and commenting on their thought processes. Subjects’ performances are generally recorded on audio- or videotape; the term think-aloud protocols, or think-aloud protocols for short, refers to the written transcripts of such recordings. The purpose of think-aloud protocol studies is to gain a better understanding of the psychological and linguistic mechanisms involved in the activity of translating. Thinking aloud is concurrent (takes place simultaneously with the task performance) and undirected (subjects are not asked to verbalize specific information) [Jaaskelainen, 2005].
However Bells stresses that apart from the difficulty of observing what is essentially a mental activity, a further problem relates to the danger of lack of representativeness in the sample of informants or in the tasks they were asked to do [Bell, 2005]. Most of the translators studied have been trainees. It is clear that different groups of bilinguals, including translation students and experienced professional translators, can differ markedly in the strategies they adopt. According to Lorscher, the typical strategy of the professional translator/interpreter is sense-oriented, making use of top-down processing, with the focus on function rather than form, and drawing on procedural knowledge. By contrast, the typical strategy of student and non-professional translators is sign-oriented, making use of bottom-up processing which focuses on form rather than function, and drawing on factual, declarative. For them, translation consists of (semi-)automatic lexical transfer, and the sign in the target language is called up by the sign in the source language rather than by the relevant concept [Lorscher, 1992].
Jaaskelainen concludes that “although think-aloud protocols can not help us unravel all the mysteries of translation, they do provide access to valuable information about the nature of translating [Jaaskelainen, 2005]. Other methods of acquiring such information include interviews, questionnaires and team translation (translators working in pairs or in small groups).
Thus translation involves sophisticated cognitive processes which require further investigation. The most important areas awaiting further research include refining the methodology, carrying out longitudinal studies to map the development of sense-oriented translation competence, understanding of an interaction between the translator’s cognitive system, translator’s linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge and skills, task and the linguistic and discoursal structure of the source text. Only complementary evidence collected by using different methodologies can provide the picture of translator’s mental processes.
ДОГОВОР № 20
НА ПРОДАЖУ ФЬЮЧЕРСНОГО КОНТРАКТА
НА ПОКУПКУ ДОЛЛАРОВ США
г. _________________ «___»___________ 200__ г.
«Фирма», в лице ________(должность, ф.и.о.), действующего на основании (Устава, положения), с одной стороны, и ____ (наименование предприятия), именуемое в дальнейшем «Покупатель», в лице ______________(должность, ф.и.о.), действующего на основании ________(Устава, положения), с другой стороны, заключили настоящий договор о нижеследующем:
1. Предмет договора
1. Покупатель поручает Фирме на условиях, определенных настоящим Договором осуществить продажу лота на аукционе проводимой Фирмой, в форме фьючерсного контракта на покупку долларов США (обязательное право сторон по фьючерсному контракту в течении даты окончания действия фьючерсного контракта опциона купить/продать доллары США), где:
– дата осуществления взаиморасчетов между сторонами по фьючерсному контракту – дата окончания действия фьючерсного контракта: «___»__________ 200__ г.;
– количество покупаемых долларов США: ___(___) (прописью);
– курс по которому покупаются доллары США: 1 (один) доллар США =___ (_________) рублей, на общую сумму ____ (________) (прописью) рублей.
2. Фирма обязуется при исполнении поручения Покупателя соблюдать исключительно интересы Покупателя, не использовать предоставляемые Покупателем возможности в своих собственных интересах или в интересах третьих лиц.
3. Покупатель после заключения сторонами настоящего договора-заявки предварительно до даты проведения аукциона предоставляет нижеперечисленные документы, в противном случае данная заявка аннулируется:
– платежное поручение с исполнением Банка Покупателя об оплате стоимости участия данной заявки на аукционе проводимой Фирмой;
– банковскую гарантию на сумму конвертируемой Покупателем валюты _____ (доллары США, рубли) по данному опциону, в случае, если дата продажи/покупки долларов США по опциону – дата окончания действия опциона составляет не менее ____ банковских дней и не более __________ банковских дней с даты проведения Фирмой аукциона;
– банковскую гарантию на сумму стоимости опциона. В случае перечисления денежных средств на р/сч Фирмы или внесение их в кассу Фирмы за участие заявки на аукционе и для продажи (конвертации) до проведения Фирмой аукциона, вышеперечисленные документы не требуются.
4. Покупатель в течение ___ банковских дней со дня проведения Фирмой аукциона вносит в кассу Эмитента опциона наличные денежные средства или предоставляет Эмитенту опциона платежное поручение с исполнением об оплате стоимости опциона. В случае невыполнения Покупателем данного пункта, купленный Покупателем опцион признается недействительным и аннулируется, а также Покупатель выплачивает пеню в размере ____% от стоимости опциона за каждый день просрочки, но не более ____%. В данном случае, денежная сумма, полученная Фирмой от Покупателя за участие данной заявки на аукционе, Покупателю не возвращается.
5. Срок действия настоящей заявки на покупку опциона устанавливается Покупателем до «___»__________ 200__ г.
6. Схемы расчетов между сторонами по опциону:
До даты окончания действия опциона, Покупатель в случае решения о покупке/продаже долларов США перечисляет на р/сч ________
Коммерческого Банка _________ валюту пропорционально оговоренной в п. 1 в размере ____ (____)(прописью) рублей/долларов США.
Коммерческий Банк ______ в течении двух дней со дня поступления денежных средств Покупателя на р/сч ____ Коммерческого Банка заключает с Эмитентом опциона акт приема-передачи документа подтверждающий факт поступление денежных средств от Покупателя и предоставляет банковские реквизиты Покупателя. В случае просрочки срока заключения вышесказанного акта по вине ____ Коммерческого Банка или указание Эмитенту опциона неправильных банковских реквизитов Покупателя, ______ Коммерческий Банк выплачивает пеню в размере ___% от рублевой суммы конвертации за каждый день просрочки.
Эмитент опциона в течение двух банковских дней после подписания с _______ Коммерческим Банком акта приема-передачи документа подтверждающего факт поступления денежных средств Покупателя на р/сч ______ Коммерческого Банка по данному опциону перечисляет на счет Покупателя валюту в размере ____(______) (прописью)долларов США/ рублей. В случае просрочки срока оплаты Эмитент опциона выплачивает Покупателю пеню в размере ____% в рублях от суммы конвертации за каждый день просрочки, но не более ___%.