Maxim hedges in literary texts: A translational perspective

Gabriela Miššíková

Maxim hedges in literary texts: A translational perspective

Vol.1,No.1(2008)

PDF

The article presents conversational and translational analyses of maxim hedges. The purpose of conversational analysis is to recognize conversational strategies employed by the participants in communication, focusing on specifi c usages of hedging expressions and intensifi ers. A meta-linguistic function of hedges is central to my considerations; hedges are viewed as indicators and cues helping to infer the likeliest meaning in the given context of conversation. A translational perspective of the article is achieved by analysing specifi c usages of maxim hedges in two parallel texts, the source text in English (ST) and its Slovak translation, i.e. the target text (TT). Distinctive functions of hedges in the ST and TT are identifi ed; the hedges which seem to cause problems in translation are discussed. Using the method of conversational analysis, types of hedges are classifi ed, stating their functions and relatedness to particular conversational maxims. A translational perspective is added by means of a translation analysis, including comparative and contrastive aspects of study. In conclusion, translation strategies have been formulated.

References

Cruse, A. (2000) Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2007) ‘On coherence in written discourse.’ In: Schmied, J.,
Haase, C., Povolná, R. (eds) Complexity and Coherence: Approaches to Linguistic
Research and Language Teaching. REAL Studies 3. Göttingen. Cuvillier Verlag,
127-146.

Grice, H. P. (1975) ‘Logic and conversation.’ In: Cole. P., Morgan, J. L. (eds) Syntax and
Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 41-58.

Grundy, P. and Jiang Y. (1998) ‘Cognitive semantics and deictic reference.’ Working
Papers in Chinese and Bilingual Studies 1, Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, 85-103.

Grundy, P. and Jiang Y. (1999) ‘Ideological ground and relevant interpretation in a
cognitive semantics.’ ICLC, Stockholm. Online document. 17 May 2007
http://www.tulane.edu/~howard/LangIdeo/GrundyJiang/

Grundy, P. (2000) Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold.

Lakoff, G. (1973) ‘Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.’
Journal of Philosophical Logic 2, 458-508. DOI: 10.1007/BF00262952

Lucy, J. A. (1993) (ed.) Refl exive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Povolná, R. (2006) ‘On coherence in spoken discourse.’ In: Drápela, M., Vomlela, J. (eds)
Silesian Studies in English 2006. International Conference of English and American
Studies (Proceedings). Opava: Silesian University, Faculty of Philosophy and Science,
2006, 196-205.

Sperber, D., Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford:
Blackwell.

Watts, R. J. (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Metrics

330

Views

208

PDF views

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

PDF