Pragmatic patterns and the lexical system—A reassessment of evaluation in language

Dam-Jensen, Helle; Zethsen, Karen Korning

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.009

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Again Steiner builds on Jakobson who also discussed the fact that e.g. the challenge of synonymy in intralingual translation resembles the challenge of equivalence in interlingual translation ( Jakobson, 1959, TSR, p. 114) (see also Dam-Jensen and Zethsen, 2007). Complete equivalence as well as absolute synonymy is very rare [if it exists at all] and this fundamental dilemma of interpretation is shared by 'rewording' as well as 'translation proper' (Steiner, 1975, p. 261): "What Jakobson calls 'rewording'-an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs in the same language-in fact raises issues of the same order as translation proper" (1975, p. 414).…”

Section: Ttr a 20 Ans / Ttr Turns 20mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Translation Proper—Extending the Field of Translation Studies

Zethsen¹

2008

ttr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern society demands many different kinds of translation or translation-like activities which often exceed the boundaries of what translation theory traditionally terms translation proper. Highly functional translations, localisation, précis-writing, expert-to-layman communication, etc. are all part of modern life, but where do such activities fit in theoretically? In this article I shall discuss the fact that despite Jakobson’s classical definition, intralingual translation or rewording is de facto peripheral to translation studies and I shall argue that the relationship between interlingual and intralingual translation is a neglected area of research, as is a thorough description of intralingual translation. Since Jakobson’s definition, general definitions of translation have become less inclusive. This I consider a major setback as there seems to be much to gain theoretically as well as practically by looking for similarities and differences between various kinds of translational activities. With the ulterior motive of putting intralingual translation (back?) on the map of translation studies and to encourage future empirical research within this area I shall argue for a broader perception of translation and consequently of translation studies as a discipline. Inspired by Jakobson (1959), Toury (1995) and Tymoczko (1998, 2005), I shall attempt to draw up an open definition of translation which reflects the many-faceted nature of the phenomenon.La société moderne a recours à de nombreuses formes de traductions et activités traductionnelles dérivées qui souvent échappent aux définitions canoniques de la notion de traduction. Les traductions hautement fonctionnelles, la localisation, la contraction, la communication de spécialiste à non spécialiste, etc., sont toutes intégrées à la vie moderne, mais comment ces activités traductionnelles peuvent-elles être intégrées à la théorisation de la traduction? Dans cet article, en dépit de la définition classique de Jakobson, je soutiendrai que l’étude de la traduction intralinguale – ou reformulation – est péripherique à la recherche traductologique; je soutiendrai que le rapport entre traduction inter- et intralinguale est un axe de recherche négligé, tout comme l’est une étude approfondie de la traduction intralinguale elle-même. Depuis Jakobson, les définitions générales de la traduction ont perdu en extensivité. Il s’agit là d’un retour en arrière car il y aurait beaucoup à gagner tant sur le plan théorique que dans la pratique à repérer l’ensemble des points de convergence et de divergence entre les différents types d’activités traductionnelles. En vue de réinsérer explicitement la traduction intralinguale dans le champ de recherche traductologique et d’encourager de futures recherches empiriques dans le domaine, j’argumenterai en faveur d’une définition plus large de la notion de traduction et par extension de la traductologie. Dans la lignée des travaux de Jakobson (1959), Toury (1995) et Tymoczko (1998, 2005), je m’appliquerai à élaborer une définition ouverte ...

show abstract

Section: Ttr a 20 Ans / Ttr Turns 20mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Translation Proper—Extending the Field of Translation Studies

Zethsen¹

2008

ttr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous contrastive research that explicitly deals with extended units of meaning, and particularly the concept of semantic prosody, includes Partington (1998), Berber Sardinha (1999, 2000, Tognini-Bonelli (2001, Dam-Jensen & Zethsen (2006), Xiao & McEnery (2006), , and Ebeling (2014), of which the latter three are most relevant to the present study as they involve data from a bidirectional translation corpus of the language pair English and Norwegian. 3 However, the present study also differs from these three studies in that the aim is to systematically explore the full phraseology of two pre-defined frequent cognate nouns.…”

Section: Previous Contrastive Studies Of Extended Units Of Meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

An eye for an eye? Exploring the cross-linguistic phraseology ofeye/øye

Ebeling

2014

Nord J Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown the productive nature of eye and how it enters into patterns of a more or less non-compositional nature (e.g. Sinclair 1991a, Więcławska 2012). This paper adds a contrastive dimension and explores the cross-linguistic phraseology of the EnglishNorwegian cognates eye and øye on the basis of monolingual, bilingual and multilingual corpora. Starting with a survey of uses in the bidirectional English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus+ (ENPC+), the contrastive analysis reveals that while the two languages overlap in many of their uses of eye/øye-expressions, differences also emerge, particularly with regard to the number of recurrent patterns recorded and their conditions of use. English has more recurrent patterns with eye, but Norwegian has by far the most frequent pattern, FÅ øye på 'catch sight of' (lit.: get eye on). Following this general cross-linguistic survey, a focused contrastive case study of FÅ øye på and its English correspondences shows how a combination of bilingual and monolingual corpora may complement each other in contrastive research. The study uncovers that English has three main correspondences -CATCH sight of, SEE and SPOT -of which the first is the one favoured by bilingual dictionaries. An in-depth analysis of FÅ øye på and CATCH sight of and their extended context, i.e. when they are part of extended units of meaning (e.g. Sinclair 1996), suggests that although the two patterns are perfectly matched, there are substantial differences when it comes to their frequency of use. This contributes to the relatively low mutual correspondences in the bidirectional translation material at hand.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, some researchers have noted that prosodies come in varying degrees of strength (e.g. Louw 1993: 164;Partington 2004: 144;Dam-Jensen andZethsen 2007: 1620), suggesting that other positions along this evaluative cline are warranted.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, a number of researchers have suggested the importance of diachrony for an adequately descriptive explanation of semantic prosody (Louw 1993: 164;Stubbs 1995: 50;Bublitz 1996: 13-14;Channell 2000: 51-53;Dam-Jensen andZethsen 2007: 1616; Morley and Partington 2009: 152-153). In order to address this missing line of scholarship, we present our study on the historical development of the semantic prosody involving the lexeme cause and the constructions it enters into.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical and historical investigation into semantic prosody

Smith

Nordquist²

2012

JHP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While existing literature on cause frequently cites the negative meaning associated with that lexeme, i.e. the fact that cause tends to appear with a negative outcome, e.g. cause an accident, really no scholar has studied in any detail the historical development of the phenomenon. In order to address this missing line of scholarship concerning the diachronic development of, what we refer to here as, a semantic prosody, this paper presents a fine-grained historical study of the development of the negative semantic associations of cause by comparing tokens from the Early Modern English period to those from Present-day English. We are able to conclude that the semantic prosody involved with cause is an emergent diachronic phenomenon. In addition, we are also able to argue that it is at the level of construction that such a prosodic pattern operates. Following from the notion that the semantic prosody is a construction-level phenomenon, we offer an exemplar-based model to motivate certain of the diachronic and synchronic facts.

show abstract

Pragmatic patterns and the lexical system—A reassessment of evaluation in language

Cited by 29 publications

References 1 publication

Beyond Translation Proper—Extending the Field of Translation Studies

Beyond Translation Proper—Extending the Field of Translation Studies

An eye for an eye? Exploring the cross-linguistic phraseology ofeye/øye

A critical and historical investigation into semantic prosody

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About