4.

Advancesin Linguistic Theory and their Relevance to Translationt

L. RONALDROSS
Linguisticshas long been reco_{nized to be a r,ital componentof a transla. e u , i l l e x a m i n ea n u m b e ro f s u b d i s c i p l i n e s t o r ' ' st r a i n i n g .I n t h i s c h a p t e r w particularly relevantto translation. of the fielcl that seertr especialll,those major development Though that haveundergone over the pastf-ewdecades. s e a l tw i t h d o u b t l e s s r e f l e c tt h e s p e c i a li n t e r e s t s t h e s u b d i s c i p l i n ed of the author, there has been an eflbrt to achieveas rnuch breadthas possiblc within the available space. We will not considerfbrrnal tlreoriesof linguistics,since their direct t h e o r ya n d p r a c t i c e contribution to translation seems t o b e m i n i m a l . rM o s t formal approaches draw a pretty tight circle around what they cc'rnsider Iegitirnatelinguistic inquiry. They are primarily concernedwith sentence grammar, concentrateon competencet() the exclusion of performance. assignnreaningto only one cor.uponent of the gramular and disregardthe eff-ects of context on structureand meaning. This suggestsless lruitful ground fbr people who are looking to linguisticsfbr help in dealing with thetrirnslalion o l -t e x t s .

4.1 Universalismversusrelativity
One of the issuesthat most divicle the field of linguisticstoday is that of universulismversusrelutit'ity'.Universalismassumes that thl underlying structures sre pretty muclr alike, cut from the same o f a l l l a n - q u a g ea mould, as it were. One approachposits universalprinciplesthat explain

I Thanksto CitrlaJara,Torn Payrre t'eaciing lnd JcaninaUmrna fbr thcir rncticuloLrs of an ear'lier dlalt of thrspaperand tbr thcil nurnelous lrrd cornhclpful sug-eestions ments.Thanks also to thc United Bihle Socicties tirr thcir perrnission to rcproducc Sections 4.5 and;1.6 fiom anotherarticleby the authortitled 'Linguisticsand Transfation' and pLrblished 2002. in I)i.st'over thc lliltlc (ed. Ro-cclOmanson). r Chonrsky ( l g l l l J l:8 0 t e x p r c s s c d o l ' l c rp c o p l c cs u d l i r t l ct r > t h e r i c w 't h e t l i n g r - r i s t i h involvcdin p1xc1icn1 in tcspotrsc langr-ragc tcaching cndeavours suchas translation:,rnd to a qucstionput to hirn while dcliveringhis ManaguaLectures, and was prcsttr.nably relcrring ingursties. t o g c n c r u t i vlc

111

,1d yuttt't's i n Li n g tri.s I i c Tlteon

1,.Rottuld Ross

115

the generalalikenessof languages and describesthe ditfbrencesas slmp l y l a n - r l u a gs ep e c i f i cp a r a n r e t e ro sr ' l e v e r s ' t h a t m u s t b c p u l l e d b y t h e language whenaccluirinu learner a s p e c i f i cn a t i v el a n - e u a g e I t. i s a s s u r n e d t h a t l a n g u a g es t r u c t u r ei n t h e m a i n i s a c q u i r e dg e n e t i c a l l ya n d t h a t a l l l a n g u a g e s h a r ea u n i v e r s a ls e n r a n t i c structure a n d u n d e r l y i n us y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e .W r hatevercan b e s a i di n o n e l a n - t u a g e c a n b e s a i di n r L n y other'. " t h e r e ( 1 9 8 7 Regarding t h e l e x i c o n ,C h o n r s k y is no clear 2 2 1c l i L i m s that o t h e a s s l l u r p t i ot is gr-riderl a l t e r n a t i . ,t 'e n hatthe acquisition of vocabulary by a rich and invariantconceptual systemwhich is prior to any experience". Relativistsar-{uethat langua-rles differ far rnorethan universalists conc e d e a n d t h a t t h e y r e f l e c t g r a m m a t i c a l l ya n d l e x i c a l l y m a n v o f t h e i r ' speirkers'assurnptions them. In its strclnger \rerabout the world ar<luncl siorrs. il is assurred that Ianguages datenrrirrt, the conccptual to solncdegree s y s t e mo f a l i n g u i s t i cc o m n r u l . r i tb y y l e a d i n gt h e i r s p e a k e r s to pereL'i\c some aspects of their reality. while concealingothersfrorr-r thern.This rs in essence what Boas. Sapil and Whorf' believed and tau-uht cluring thc flrst half ot' the twentieth century. and the idea that conceptsare lar'-ucl1 languagedetelnrinedgoes lrack at least as l'ar as Hurnboldt. in the earlr nineteenth century. With the death- in the spaceof five yeirrs of Boas,Sapir and Wholl and the birth of generativegrammar, lin-cuisticrelativity 1'ellupon harcl t i m e s .C h o n r s k vw a s b e n t o n t L r l n i n -lti n g u i s t i c s i n t o a ' h a r d ' s c i e n c ea . rttl s c i e n c ew a s s L l p p o s e t co l b e a g e n e r ' . r l i z i nrg irtlrer t l r a na p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g The quest was firr uttiv'ersal gr(tnttnur(UG), and to fbcus ott enterprise. variation. especially a t t h e l e v e l o f c o g n i t i o n .w a s c o n s i d e r e d irresponsi(Lakoff 1987:3021 be ble scholarship L)i.n g u i s t i cr e l a t i v i t yc o u l d s c a r c e l y mentioned i n p o l i t ec o m p a n y . h l t sh c e t l L a t e l y .l i n g u i s t i cr e l a t i v i t l , I 't a sh e e nr n a k i n gu c o r t t e b a c k a .n c l c l o s e l ya s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o g n i t i v el i n g u i s t i c s . 5l r r a r e c e n ti s s u eo f L t t n -

do ,,,one of the main articles and tw() of the book reviews had to guage as StevenLevilson, John with linguisticrelativity.LinguistssLrch Dan Slobin and George Foley, John Lucy. Elinor Ochs,William Guruperz, cause.Today's Lakotf are among those who have lent their namesto the Sapir-Whorf of the copy a carbon linguistic relativity is not necessarily is norv placed on empirical research, Much greaterernphasis hypothesis. that lanin and some of those whu rjo research this areawould not agree perceptionof their reality' tletertninaaspectsof a cotrttt.tLtttity's gua-ges Still others would argue preferring insteadto talk in terms of itr.fluence. Whichever way it is - and it may that it is culture that impacts language. diff'er be both ways - there is a growing body of evidencethat languages peohow in diff'erences in intriguine ways that reflect equally intrigLring p l e s e c a r r dc l l t s : i l v t h c i r w o r l t l ' T h e p o s i t i o n o n e s d o p t s w i t h r e s p e c tt o t h e l i n g u i s t i c u n i v e r s a l i s n l o n e ' sp o s i t i o n w i l l u l t i m a t e l yi n f l u e n c e l i n g u i s t i cr e l a t i v i t yd e b a t e versus hrt T h e i t s s u l n p t i ol n w e l l . h c ( ) r )u \ i n t r a n s l u t i otn eruciai lssues regarding culturesand world views ditter widely to reflectwidely dift'ering languages thetlry than the ashellristically more procluctivefor a tritrtslation Seems a r e u n d e r l y i n g l yv e r y s i t n i l a r a n d s h a r e a sunption that all languages t0 say,this doesnot imply that lanNeedless comlllon semanticstructure. position. a clearly untenable guagediversityis totally free fiorn constraints. linguistic universals. sincethere are nurnerorrs

4.1.1 Metaphor
one popular example of the relativist approachis Lakoff and Johnson's (1980)Metaphors We Live Br.,in which they nrguethat metlphor is more than a rhetoricaldevice employed in literary art fbrms. Rather,important metaconcepts that peopleuse t0 organizetheil wot'ld are conceptLlalized but rather phorically.The autlrgr's are not talking ltbtlutisolatedrnetaphors. entire networks of metaphorsur metopltor themes,and they glve numerous examples such as the tr,le is ntttne\ metaphor,comlnon in Western titna, .sat'e titttL',itrlc.st civilization. We can spentl time, wuste Iime, lt),\'e exanlArtcrther elc. titne, time, give somebotf' out' tit)re, horrott'etl lit,e on in arguiug, t|c ple is the \t-p,uttr(nt 0S t\'or txetaphol. When we ell-Cilge

'Scc,

l b t ' e x a n t p l e .K a y n e

's

( l9c).1)asscl'tio th n a t a l l o t t h c q ' o r l d ' s l a n g u a g c sh a v c a n

SIvp VOI stlucturcundellyingly tcitctl in Van Vulin antl LaPolla. (1997)). ' T h e g l o u n c i * o r k f i l t h c t h r - t r l vo t l i n - g u i s t i c l c l l t i v i t y w u s l a i c lh r B o a s . b t t t i t u i r : dcvclopcd lirlthcr by Sapir arrtl Whorl'. It u'as Whor'f rr,ho cxprcsscclthc strongcst v e r s i o n o 1 ' t h et h e o l y a n d c a l l c d i t t h e t h c o r y o l " l i n g t r i s t i c r e l a t i v i t y ' ( L u e y , 1 9 9 2 ) . ' P a l l n e r '( 1 9 9 6 ) s u g g c s t s t h a t c o g n i t i v e l i n g u i s t i c s c o u l d b e v i e w e d i i s t h e ' r r o d c r l l r e v i v a l ' o 1 ' t h e B o a s i a na p p r o a c l rt o l i n g u i s t i c s ,c x c c p t f o r i t s l e s s c ri n t e r c s ti n c u l t u t ' c a n d t h c e t h n o g r a p h yo l s p c a k i n g .S c c a l s o D u r a n t i ( l 9 t ) 7 ) a n d F o l e y ( 19 9 7 ) .

6 7

Septetnber l99ll. volunlc 74' num. 3. S e e L a k o l l ( 1 9 8 7 : 3 0 5 1 ' f )l b r a n c n l i - e h t c n i n g r c v i e w o l ' d i f - t b r e n t c o n c e p t s o l ' r L n L I

approachcsto linguistic relirtivtty'

116

Atlvutrt c.s itr Lirtguistit' Tltertrt

1,. Ronald Rtts's

117

positions,\'e uttd(k.\otneone',s ideas,trc tlln, lo.;e,rctrettt. tukc di.fterertt etc. For Lakoff and wc de.feutor sltoot tlotttt sotner)ne'sursrtttt{,n1.f, onething in terrns J o h n s o nt .h e v e r y e s s e n c e o f n r e t a p h o irs e x p e r i e n c i n g (t.\ of alrother.Arrd metaphorthel'nes such as tinte i.sntortet or dt'guntent l|tlr coustituteI'ramesthat lend coherenceto a large nurnber ol' lexicill collocations t h a t w o u l d o t h e r w i s eh a v e t c l b e v i e w e d a s e x c e p t i o n a o l r' The authors t nctuh i g h l y m a r k e dc a s e s o f l e x i c a li t c r n s . a r g u ef u r t h e l ' t h a r phor themes al'e not arbitrary, but rather ret'lectthe way that speakcrs p e r c e i v ea n d e x p e r i e n c e t h e w o r l d a r o u n d t h e m : " l n a c t u a l i t y .u ' e f ' e c l or even adequatelyreplcthat no rnetaphorcan ever be cornprehended i n d e p e n d e n t lo y f i t s e x p e r i e n t i ab sented l a s i s " ( i b i d :l 9 ) . To affirnr that metaphor thernesare not arbitrary in no way implics of difthat difl'erentculturessharethe sameones.Certainly the rnen'rbers f'erent culturesperceiveand experience the world aroundthem in dissirnilur' ways, and come up with their own peculiar rnetaphor themes.Lakofl'anrl J o h n s o na s k u s t o c o n s i d e ra c u l t u r e i n w h i c h a r g u m e n ti s v i e w e d a s u dance. In such a case,the participantswould not be seen as at war",but rather as perfbrmers.They would have to executetheir pertormanceitt r.r 'balanced pleasingway'. It would not look like an ar-qLrand aesthetically ment to us at all, and we may assumethat they are engagedin some other kind of activity. Translators have always known that metaphors fiom one culture otierl do not work in a tfanslationfbr anotherand dealing with metaphorsrLnd figurative lan-ruage in generalhas always beena part of Bible translators' training. What is interestingin Lakoff and Johnsonis the pervasiveness of metaphorand the existenceof metaphorthemes,whose representatlon in istllatton posesa greaterchallengeto translittors than that of metaphors (cf. the discussion of archetypei sn s e c t i o n6 . 1 . 3 ) .

as being beliltul or itt.frrtnl such languates.locationsare often expt'essed is especiallytltle when rigli or /t'/i. This speaker's or to thc o/the speaker nced ntlt be the speaker.It the location is nearby.The point of ref'erence or sonlethingelse (befiirttl llte tuble, ttt tfie can be projectedonto soltteone right o.l'tltetnk tree). areex. ll locations ls ackin-c r e l a t i v es p a t i a lo r i e n t a t i o na In lan-guage . h i s , o f c o u r s e .i r n p l i e st h a l t h c i n t e r n r so f c a r d i n a ld i r e c t i o n s T pressed hearingat all (ilres' t't.lust hitve nearly perf'ect of such languages speakers et ul. (1998) a n d i n d e e d t h i s h a s b e e n s h o w n t o b e t h e c a s e .P e d e r s o n t o d e t c ' r r n i nw e h c t h e ra experinlents of nonlinguistic c a r r i e do u t a s e r i e s to his linguistic flarne corresponds cognitivefrarneol'reference speaker's o f r e f e r e n c e .l n o t h e r w o r d s . t h e y w a n t e d t o t e s t w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e o1'spatialorientathat differ in the categorization of languages speakers of space to their perception way with respect tion differ in a corresponding testing is important an Spatial orientation behaviour. and resultant -tround for linguistic relativity becausespace is something thirt presumtrblyall cannot be atway, so diff'erences human beings experiencein the san're t r i b u t e d t o d i s s i r n i l a r i t yi n c u l t u r e o r e n v i r o n m e t r t .P e d e r s o na n d h i s (ibid:-5,57) a language-tobelieve their researchdemonstrates colleagues : conceptualization directionality that a clcarly demonstrate The lindings fiom theseexpcriments s ith the c o d i n gr c l i a b l yc o r r e l a t ew community's u s co f l i n g u i s t i c spatialdistincway the individualconccptualizes and memorizcs f ind linguistic w e Because t i o n s f o r n o n l i n g u i s t i cp u r p o s e s . relativity effectsin a domain that seemsbasicto humanexperie n c e a n d i s d i r e c t l y l i n k e d t o u n i v e r s i r l l ys h a r e dp e r c e p t u a l languagc betwcen mechanisms, correlations it is likely that sirnilar and thoughtwill be fbund in otherdomainsas well. Clearly such correlations have irnplicationsfbr translationtheory. For instance,the biblical languageshave both absolute and relative spatial orientations and both commonly occur in the biblical text. Therefbre.numerouspassages fbr translationinto a language would prove problernatic such as Tzeltal (Mayan, Mexico), which does not have relative spatial orientation(Foley 1997,Levinson 1996,Pederson et al. 1998).Take, fbr instance, winged beingsall his vision of the fbur of Ezekiel's description havins four faces:

4.1.2 Spatial orientation

An area of particular interest to linguists working within the realnl trt l i n g u i s t i cr e l a t i v i t y o r c o g n i t i v el i n g u i s t i c si s t h a t o f s p a t i a lo r i e n t a t l o n (e.g. Foley 1997; Levinson 1996; Peclerson et ut. 1998).Apparently all spatialorientation,basedon cardinal directiolls. lan-guages have uhsolLrte whateverforn.rthesemay take in a given language(north, east,v'hert' tltt river, tovr'(lr(l the oceun).Mat'ty dov.'rt up, tott'ttnl the mrtL.nttoins, sun ('onle.r but by no lneansall, have relatit'e spatialorientationas well' languages, basedon positionsrelative to the human body, usually the speaker's.In

I 18

Arlvuntasitr Littguisti<'Thertrt

7. Ronald Ross

u9

Eachliving creature hadlbur difterentl'accs: a humarr faceirrfront. a lion's faceat theright,a bull's laceat the lefi, andan caglc'sface a t t h e b a c k .( E z c k i e l1 . 1 0 T . EV) P e o p l e l V h o l a c k r e l a t i v e s p i t t i a lo r i e n t a t i o n u s e a b s o l u t et e r n r sa \ i r t : " P l s s l n e t h e s a l t . I t ' s r ) v e ft h e r e .j u s t e a s to f t h e c a t s u pb o t t l e . "O n e like. "Thev had a hurnarf could sav solnething r a c e t o t h e n o r t h ,a l i o n ' s face to the east.a bull's firceto the west and an eagle'sfhce (presurnabh,) t o t h e s o u t h . "B u t t h e E z e k i e lt e x t d o e sn o t i n d i c a t ew h i c h c a r d i n a ld i l e c tion the loul beings\4'ere facing, so one would be tbrced to make arbitrary 'facing' choices. And what does nean when a being has firur faces ail looking diff-erent directions.One could even ask if it rnakesnruch sense to talk about cardinal directiclns referring to a dream. Probably the best option would be to undertranslate and put somethinglike "each had lirur faceson its head.On one side they had a human f'ace. on another.a lion's face ... ." This is utdertrctnsltttitt,g becauseit gives us no real idea ol'the orqanizationclf the fhces on the head. whereasthe Hebrew text does. Ref-erringspecifically to translation problems. Lakoff ( I 987:3 I I fi) saysessentiallythat the possibility of translationbetweentwo langua-lcs (the cornnrensurdepends systems on the existence of comrron conceptual s a v et o t a l l yd i s p a r a t e a b i l i t y p m b l e r n ) .P r o b a b l yn o l a n g u a g e h cclnceptuul s c h e m a t as . o t r a n s l a t i < lin s possible, a s w e k n o w . B u t o f c o u r s et r a n s l l t Folel' tion problems arise at those points where there lre rnismatches. (l'997:l7l) observes: Because translation requircsmoving thc categorie's of the alicrt system into those of <lur constraints on how radiown, this in.rposes incornpatible. cally dilferentthealiensystem can be.If conrplctely evcn partialtranslation The t'actthat a fair shouldbc irnpossible. across languages degree of translaticln schcmes between conccptual possible s o m et n i n i a n dc u l t u r c s i n c l i c a t cts h a ta t l e a s t d o e ss e e m s i c )c l oc x i s t .B u t t h i s s h o u l cn l ot blindus tt.r m a l c o m t n u n a l i t i e(s languages arc that cntphasizes thern. the rvidegulf betrveeri Quine of wordsacross systems: we arc not trying to matchthe meanings schentcs these belongto - a much but the conceptual the systems, a sw h o l e s . t h es y s t c m s aligning a s t h i si m p l i e s t a l l e ro r d e r . schernata betweensourceand targetlanguages Mismatchingconceptual in ale a source of problems for the translatorthat need to be addressed

anytheoryoftranslation.Andlearningtoidentifythemanddealwith trainirlg' t h e m s h o u l db e a p a r t o f a n y t r a n s l a t o r ' s

4.2 TYPologY
into types tln the basisof lan-euages Linguistic typology attemptsttl lutrlp practtcomlnonalities.Norvadaystypology is concernedwith stru-ctural level' even at the discottrse of language. cally all aspects

4.2.1 Constituent order tYPologY

oneofthemosttraclitionalconcernsoflinguistictypolo.evhasbeenthe at the clause level or words irt the phrase level' At order of constituents haVe of the worlcl's lirnguages the clauselevel. the overwhelmingrna.itlrity Verb orclers: constituent one of the fbllowing three basic (i.e. unmarkecl) Subjectobject(VSo)'SubjectVerbobject(SVo)orSubiectobjectVerb ' nly , h a t i n a V S O l a n g u a g eo ( S O V ) . T h i s d o e sn o t m e a n ,l b r e x a n r p l e t most netltliil. that order occurs. It rneattsthat it is the unnrarked,ntott from it' deviate speakers wherr artd that expectedorder in that langr-rage. sornethingof pragrnatic irnport to the hearer' they are communicatin-e EnglishisnowanSVoIangua.ee.butcertainly('|herm0rkerltlrdersare as catl be seenfrotn examples la-b: possibleand occur all the tirr-re. SVO) t l l a . I l i k c g u a c a r n o l(e ( I likc OSV) b. Grtacarlole disi d e n t i c a lb ' ut pragmiltically sr c s e t u a n t i c l l l y T h e s et w ( ) s e l l t e n c ea It would tinct zrndwould be used in diff'erentcontextualcircutnstances. liom arl SVO languagelike Spanbehooveil translatorwho is trlrnslating ish into, say,a VSO language like Garifuna(Araw.k, Honduriis)to be acutely Garifuna pertnitsSVO when there is awareof this typologicaldifl'erence. on the subject.However, a pragmaticneeclto confer speciirlprorninence of a Garifurta tl'anslait is easy to irnagine the clisastrotls consequeltces SVO order of Spanishas a tor's ingenuouslyreproducingthe rtnrnctrketl it is unlikely that any marked SVO orclerin Garifuna. As she tt'anslates, rvould sound very wfong to her. But singleinstanceof this mistranslaticln Ancl when she would he calarnittlus. the overall i'tpact on the cliscourse reviewsher work. it woulclno doubt soundstrangeto her, though she rnay not know how to correctthe problem.certainly to ensureas high a degree

iil

t20

Atlvurrt'c s i tt Li tt,q tti.st i c Tltcrt t't

L. Rttttdltl Rttts

t21

of pragmatic s i r n i l a r i t ya s i s p o s s i b l e t h e s o u l c et e x t a n d t h c between targ e t t e x t .w o r k s h o p s s h o u l di n c l u d et r a i n i n gw i t h r e s p e c t o t h e u n m a r k c c l constitLlcn otr d e r so f b o t h t h e s o u r c ea n d t a r g e tl a n g u a g e s and the kincls r.l'hen rnarkedurders are cl.rosen. of trxagrnatic changesthat occur in cacl.r C a r e s h o u l cb l e t a k e nt o t r a n s l a t e u n m a r k e do r d e r sw i t h u r r n r a r k e d orres and rnarkedorders with rnarkedones of sirnilar pragnatic effbct. l a t e sw i t h o t h e r a s p e c t s The cclnstituen ctl r c l eo r f clatrses ofiencorre of a l a n g u a g e .F " o r e x a n r p l e i,f a l a n - t u a g e h a s a V O o r d e r .o n e c a n [ ' r e fairlr conl-ident that it also has prepositions. whereasOV langua-ues will rrolc l i k e l y h a v ep o s t p o s i t i o n s T.h i s i s n o t t o o h e l p t i r l- e v e n i f t h e s o u r c el u n g u a g ea n c lt h e t a r g e tl a n g r " r a g ae r e t y p o l o g i c a l l yd i f f e r e n ti n t h i s r e g a r r l since f-ewtranslatorsare likely to start tacking prepositionsonto the encl j u s t b e c a u s et h e s o u r c e l i r n g u a r eh u s of nouns in the targetlanguage postpositions . o w e v e r ,a u a w a r e n e s o H s f o t h e rt y p o l o g i c a li n t b r r n a t i o n preclictedby word order - can be crucial. becausetlre dittbrencestht-'1 s i g n a l a r e n o w h e l e n e a r l y s o m e c h a n i c a ln o r s o e a s y t o d e a l w i t h a s adpositions.Basic word order also gives us clues as to what the markcd and unrnarkedorder of nouns lncl rnodifiers will be ancl recogrritionof or this can help to avoid translatingunrnarkedorders u'ith rnarkedonL-s vice versa. In current linguistic theory. the term heud reters to the element that determines thesyntactic c h a r a c t eo r f a c o n s t i t u e n tS . o t h e h e a dn f a n o t t t i phrase is the noun. the head of a verb phrase.the verb. etc. Theo Vettn e m a n n ( c i t e d b y C l o m r i e ,1 9 8 9 ) n o t i c e d a u n i v e r s a lt e n d e n c yf b l V O languages tobe heutl-irtitial to be the first elenrentirt thc . (i.e. ttrr the heacl (i.e. for the head to bc the phrase)and tbr OV langua-tes to be lteutl-.linul final elementin the phrase).') Guirrcrt. R o b e r t s( 1 9 9 1 ) ,a s p e c i i t l i sitn t h e l a n g u i t g e s of Papua-New s h o w sj L r s t h o w i r n p o r t a n t h i s t y p o l o g yc a n b e t o t r a n s l a t o r sH . c is u'olk-

a"n d t h e r e VSO language.r i n g w i t h b i b l i c a lG r e e ka n c lA m e l e .C l e e k i s a Amele is SOV and therelbre a head-final language.lt fore heacl-initial. i l-rfa l c o n t r a s t l t a s p r o l i r t r n dc o n s e h a p p e n st h a t t h e h e a c l - i n i t i a l / h e a d expressirtg s i l l o r d e l 'c l a u s e s l . t t l wl a l t g t r a g ew it pleclicts because quences 2 (adaptecl in Table indicated as uariout kinds of lo-9icalrelationships. from Roberts). VSO(Grack) RESULT-reason RESULT-means MEANS-purpose M E A N S - n c gp t r r p ( ) s c S0l'(Atrrelc) reason-RESULT rncans-RESULT purpose-MEANS n e gp u r p o s e - M E A N S

(ftrrtl) (RESULT)because The crowcl... wasbewildered [2] a. Greek: (REAlanguagcs o\\'11 in their speaking thcrn people hearcl all the ( A c t s2 . 6 ) " SON). lani n t h e i ro w n n i t t i v e T ' .h e y a l l h e a r dt h e r l ls p c a k i n g b. Arrrele RESLILT)' (REASON). s o ( r r r rt)h e yw e r ea l l b e r v i l d e r e(d guagcs laid itncl l3l a. Grct,k:They evcncarricdthe sick out into the streets. (/rinrr) shadtlw Peter's (ME,ANS), scl that thernon cots and ntats as he camcby (PURPOSE)' might fall on someo1'then'r ( A c t s- 5 . 1 5 ) Peterwill comeby antlhis shadtlwmight fall olt some b. Amt'le'. so (rrrr)thcy carricclthe sick ()ut into the of thern (PURPOSE,), streetand laid thcnl on mats. und tut SOVlutrgttuga' ttftlt'rittt!in a VS) kutguuge Table2: Cluu.se workirtg irr Robertslrastbund sufl'icientsupportirmonghis colleagues that this to su-qgest OV languagesin PapuaNew Guinea and elsewherre mi-eht b e a l i n g u i s t i cu n i v e r s a l .A l t h o u g h i n l e s s d e t a i l , L a r s o n ( 1 9 8 4 ) n nglish and Upper cites similal clause-order d i s s i l r i l a r i t i e sb e t r . r ' e eE Asaro (citing tlatafrom Deibler and Taylor 1977)as well as someunnamed

'Pledictions legarding

rrscd o f a s p e c i f i cl i n g u i s t i cp l u ' a n r e t ch t l r c p l c s c n c co r ' a h s e n c c

o n o t h c l l i n r : u i s t i c p l f l u r l c r c r \ r r c K n o \ \ ' n a r n ( ) u r s t t ) ' p o l ( ) g i s t si , t si n l p l i c i t t i ( ) l l i t l u n i v e r s a l s .T h i s k i n c l o l ' l i n c u i s t i c u n i v e r s a l u i t s d e v c l o p c d i n i t i a l l y h \ J o r c p h has a trial nutnbet, it also hrs a tlual: Glccnherg. An exatnple would bc: If a langua-uc ll'it has a dual. it also hasa plural. , ho llrt'" T h e t c l n r s ' h e a d - i n i t r i r l ' l n d ' h e a d - t i n a l ' w c t ' c n o t t t s c d b y V e n t t r ' r n a n t tw 'operator' 'opcrar)d-()pcriltol' l a r t g u a g e s -i r n d opcl'illltl fcrrccl thr' nrorc technical tel.nrs languagcs' rcspcctivL-ly.

r(' (irccrlberg Httnt'rc-t', ntcntol Roberts. Thc VSO status ol'Ancicnt Crcck is it.juclge C i . rncc ( 1 9 6 6 )a l s oc l l s s i l ' i c s (assuming t h a t h e i s r c f c r r i n gt g A n c i c n t r c e k s it thLrs (1982) Lcvinsohn and do Fribcr-u as t11 bc SVO), Modcrn Grcck is widcly corrsidcrcd is tlctcr (2000).Wartcrs (20(X):l3l) bclicvesthat verb and ob.icctordcr in Gt-cc-k ratherthall hy syntax. pru-gllli-ltics minedmore hy cliscoursc rrThe glosses t a sb c c l ) clausL'ordct'iG n r c c k a n d A t t l e l e ,b u t n 6 a t t e t l t ph indicatc tlrderin thcsclanguages' the word or constituent ntadeto renrodttce

122

Atlvutu'a s i n Li n gui.rtit' Th eo rt

l. Rttnttld Ros.s

I 2.1

languages in Arnazonia. l ommunication Stephen L e v i n s o h n( p e r s o n ac to R o b e r t s ) s p e c i f i e s I n g a a s o n e s u c h A m a z o n i a n l a n g u a g e .B r i b r . i (Chibchan,Costa Rica) - also an SOV language- works the sameway as Amele. A translatorwho was unaware of these typolo-tical differencesanci was translatingverse by verse would likely fbllow the structureof the ofien more prestigioussourcelanguage. and wind up with a very unnatural soundin-ttranslationthat would require considerablymore processir.rr: effbrt to comprehend. Furtheron in his article,Robertssug-qests that this typological distinction is related to many other differences between Greek and Amele. i n c l u d i n gt h e w a y i n w h i c h s p e a k e r c s o n s t r u ca t n a r g u m e n tF . or instance. in Greek the approachis deductive:The thesisis given first and then the supportingarguments.In Antele. the order is inductive: The supporting arguments aregiven first, fbllowed by the thesis.When checkingthe transl a t i o n , t h e A m e l e r e a d e r sw o u l d c o m e t o a t h e s i sa n d t h e n b a c k t r . a c k through the text in searchof the supporting argurnents. But they werc nowhereto be fbund because the translators had fbllowed the structureol' the sourcetext, therebyplacin-tthe argumentsafier the thesisand renclcring the argumentimpenetrable. Sr-rbstantial re\tructuring was requirecl to enable them tcl grasp the arguntentation of the text. This would bc par'ticularly troublesorne in the caseof the epistles. wherethereis considerablc argumentation.

tlr ergativein diff'erentways. For examcan be accusative Languages ergativeif it rnarksthe core arguments morphologically is language a ple, with ergativeand absolutivecases.In an imaginary languagethirt had the same vocabulary as En-clishbut was morpholggically ergative rve coulcl n w h i c h t h e d i r e c to b i e c ti n - l a a n t l e x p e c tt h e f b l l o w i n - {c o n s t r u c t i o n si . the sarneform. that is, are in the sarne the intransitivesubjectin 4b har,'e grammaticalcase: ob.ject) subject/direct l4l a. He hit hitn.(transitivc subject) b. Him ran.(intransitive can also be ergativewith respectto word order if intransiLanguages tive subjects and direct objects appear on one side of the verb, while transitive subjectsappearon the other. If the same imaginary language such as: had ergative word order. we would find constructions /ptlstverbal subject transitive Todd. (Preverbal [5] a. Bubbascared direct object) subjcct) intransitive b. Fled Todd. (Postverbal We have syntacticergativity if the intransitivesubjectsor direct tlbj e c t s f u n c t i o n a s t h e s y n t a c t i cp i v o t , w h i l e t r a n s i t i v es u b j e c t sd o n o t . Syntacticpivots are the nouns that interactwith syntacticrules, such as like Englanguages accusative d e l e t i o ni n c o o r d i n a t i o nI.n s y n t a c t i c a l l y deleted is normally clauses lish, the subjectof the secondof two coordinate if it ref-ers to the same person or thing as the subject of the first clause. (eithertransitiveor The only requirements are that both nounsbe sub.jects intransitive)and that they both have the same referent. [6] a. The man hit thc dog.Thc man ran off. b. The man hit the dog and Ithe manl ran off. of syntacticiilly dif terently by speakers Sentence 6b would be understood

4.2.2

Grammatical typology

One of the interestinggrammaticaldiff'erences betweenlanguagesis thc way they orsanizetheir grammaticalrelationsur whetherthey even havc g r a m r n a t i c ar l e l a t i o n s .T w o o f t h e m o r e c o m r n o n t y p e s a r e u t ' t ' r r . t t t t i v t ' liinguagesantl ergative languages. Accusative languagestreat transitive and intransitive subjectsthe same. fbr example by putting thern in thc n o m i n a t i v ec a s e .D i r e c t o b j e c t s ,o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t y p i c a l l y g o i n t h c accusative subc a s e .E r g a t i v el a n g u a - e e h so . w e v e r ,t r e a tt h e i n t r a n s i t i v e them both in the absolutitc .ject and the direct object the same, puttir.rg c a s e ,w h i l e t r a n s i t i v e g o a l o n ei n t h e e r g a t i v ec a s e . r r subiects

L rW c a r c s o r r r c w h a t i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y d c s c r i b i n - ue r g a t i v e l a n g u a g e s in terrls o1'accus a t i v e l a n g u a g e sl t r r t h c s a k e o 1 ' b r c v i t y a n c ls i m p l i c i t y . H o w e v e r , i n c r g a l i v e l a n g r - r a g c s

t h e p r o p c r t i e s o l ' s u b . j e c t sa r c d i v i d e d b c t w e e n t h c c r g a t i v e a n d a b s o l u t i v c c a s e s , s ( ) i t is qucstionable whcther .rult.iect is evcn a uscl'ul conccpt when relcrring to crgiltive l a n g u a g es . T h i s h a s t n o v c d a n u t n b c r o l ' f u n c t i o n a l t y p o l o g i s t s a n d o t h c r s t o p r c l - c r

l ( p i v o t . L h c- u l a r n m a t i c a l l y m o s t c c n t r a l n o u n o l - a D i x o n ' s n l o r e n c u t r a l t c r m r . f / 1 1 . /f( c l a u s e .S e e D i x o n ( 1 9 9 4 ) , F . P a l m c r ( l 9 9 z l ) a n d V a n V a l i n a n d L a P o l l a ( 1 9 9 1 ) .

12J

Atl vuncc.s t i c'l'he tt rt i rr Li ttg ui.s

l. Ronuld Rtt.s.s

125

ergativrl 'angLrage bs ecause t h e y a p p l y d e l c t i o ni n c o o r c l i n a t i o o nnly bctween t\\'o itttrunsitit'e subjects. tu,o ciirectob.;ects or one of cach.Exanrple 7 b i s n o r r r r L lh . o w e v e r .a n d h e r e i nl i e s t h e D r o b l e r n tol translators: . h c d o g r a no f f . l 7 l a . T h c r n a nh i t t h e c l o g T b. Thc man hit the clogancllthc dogl ran ol'l' A l t h o u g h6 b a n d 7 b a r e p h o n e t i c a l l y identical, t h e y c l e a r l yh a v c ' d i l ( F . P a l r n e r 1 9 9 - l ;P a y n e 1 9 9 7 ;V a n V a l i n a n d L a P o l l l f ' e r e n tn r c a n i n g s 1 9 9 7 ) .l n a r e c e n tw o r k s h o pf o r l n u p i a ks p e a k e r s . n e p a r t i c i p a nb t rought o u p a c o n t l i c t s h e h a d n o t i c e ch l e t w e e nh e r I i i r . r p i a a k n d l r n g l i s hN e w T e s h a v i n - tr e a d u n t a n r e n t sT . h e c o n f l i c t w a s d u e t o a n E , s k i m ot r a n s l u t o r E n g l i s hs e n t e n c e similarto 6b and having interpreted it as 7b. Another s t u d e n ti n t h e c l a s s ,w h o i s a b s o l u t e l y f l u e n t i n E n g l i s h .r e p e a t e d l y read the English versionand persistently misinterpreted it as though it had been writtenin liiupiak.rr This translation e r r o r ,w h i c h c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y occurnvheneve tr hele with deletionof the second arecoordinate clauses clause'ssubject.sneakecl p a s t t h e o r i g i n a l l f i u p i a k t e a n rb e c a u s e o f t h e i r u n a w a r e n e so sf t h e t y p o logicalimplicationof the contrast betweensyntactic ergativityand syntactic accusativity,and underscores again the need for translatorsand consultants to be cognizant of the typological distinctions between the source and target languages. It is not irnpossibleto translate6b into Iiiupiak; it requiresusing the antipassive voice to alter the gramlnaticirlstatusof the participants. thc But the danger is that the translators will misunc'lerstand sourcelanguagesentence and not realizethe needto adjustthe grarnmuttcal relationsin the target langua-te in order to preservethe meaning. There may be irnportanttypological distinctionsbetween neighbourof one dialect ing dialectsas well as betweenlanguages. The translators 'dialect were uslng A' of Chuj, a Mayan larrguage spokenin Guaternala, translation a Spanish a s t h e i r b a s et e x t . b u t w e r e a l s o r e l y i n g h e a v i l yo n translationin the neighbtluringdialect an alreadyexistentOld Testarnent B. Dialect B had only two gritrlltlltlticalnumbers,sittgulur ttrttl plurttl. whereasdialect A had three..sin,gular, duul andplttntl. T'heplural of dre-

d u a l a n d l g o k e cjlu s t l i k e from a previousll,existing lect B was clerived the dual of clialectA. The translators\\'cre unaware of this tact. They , n d t r a n s l r t e ca l cctrrclinglv. b e l i e v e dt h e p l u l a l so 1 ' d i a l e c tB w e r e c l u a l s a A B h a d a p l t r ; a l i.n d i a l e c t t r a n s l a t i oirn r dialect Sowheler,crthexisting dn t i l t h e w a s n o t d i s c o V e t ' eu rli l i s r n a t c h This typolo-eica they put a clual. thoue r r o r .w h i c h o c c u r r e d The resulting u ' a sn e a r l yf i n i s h e d . fianslation it had to So fix. to a computer was t.tot amenable in the text. o1'times sancls be correctedrnanually.therebydelaying the project severalnlonths. conlplex system of possessivt-' Garifuna has a rnorphologically ver'-v fathcr tllan on on the posses.\Ltttt is rnarkecl markin-uin u'hielt possession Noutts ret'erringto sollle things. I'or cxalttple tlecs arld the 7ros.sr,.rsor'.'' T h i s d o e s n o t l l l e a l lt h a t t h e i r tttarking. a n i m a l s .c a l t l t o tt a k e p o s s e s s i t e lrttt rather that Garifuna granltnltrdoes referentsclllt ttever be possessed. this To get aroLlnd e orphology. n o t a l l o w s u c hw o r d s t o t a k e p o s s e s s i v m they must use sotnc fbrnl ot the caseo1'aninlals, problern.for instanceir.r ( r ' o u g h l y ' p e t ' ) . e orpholo-ty. w h i c h c d n t a k e p o s s e s s i vm theword iliigiini in Gariftrna.but rather ttt.\' One does not say tnr tlo,e, Pet r/og. Recently. n'hereJestts while working ort the book of John, u'e cltnle to the passage Says t0 Peter:Faeritnt'sheep.Btrt.9f cotlrse.the Gariftrnall'ot'dfirl'.thrt'lr fot'tn 9f the worcl rnarking. llrsertirlga possessed cannot take possessive slnce the translatot's. raucollslaughteral.nol.ltst e7r caused iliigiini belbre.s/le l r e t Tm r ctaphorically. o f ' u n d e r s t a n d i nrg to do so precludes any possibility itrforgriilltmarssirrply transmitdifferent inforrnatitln. Often difl'erent - nluch lessdLrplicated mation that cirnnotbe crtnveniently apprtlrinrated Casacl and Langacker( 1985.cltrtlted by the grarnrnar of anotherlangua-tre. b y H u c l s o nl c ) 9 6 : U 3 - 8 1d ) i s c u s st h e c a s eo f t w o a f f i x e s t h a t a r e w i d e l y is flrr tocr ( U t o A z t e c r i nM . e . r i c o ) .T h e r r s eo f t h e s ea l ' l ' i x e s u s e di n C o r a sn c o m p l e xt o c l e s c r i b c h e r e .b u t t h e c h o i c et l f o n e o r t h e o t h c l c l e p e t r do t h e p o s i t i o no f a n o b j e c tw i t h r e s p e c t o t h e l i n e c l f v i s i t t no i ' t h e s p e a k e r . In readin-u it beconlesclear ol'how theseafflxes are usecl. the descripticln that they ret'lecta particularconceptualization of spacethat is clcterrnined largely by the fact that the Cora people live or-rt in the opert.tttlclvet are vu'ith surrounded C . u s e ss u c h a s t h e s el e a d t l s [ o c ( ] n c l u c l e b , vr n c l u n t a i n s " e l ' e n cl o n s t r u c H u d s o nt i b i d : t t r l tt h a t i f u ' e c o r t c e n t r a to en g r a n t n r a t i c a tions,afl'ixesand the like. we still fintl drarnatic diffbrences frorn language

i l A c c o r d i n g t o T o m P a y n e ( p e r s o n a l c o l . n m u n i c a t i o n ) ,a Y u p ' i k E s k i r n o a s s u r e d h i t r t that the only possible interpretalion ot'the Yup'ik sentenceTom tte the bug und gol sick wzrs Tom ute tlrc bug untl the bug got sick.

r aG a r i l ' u n a

is a hcad-ntarking languagc

126

Advtrnces in Linguistic Tlrcort'

[,. Ronald Ross

127

to language in the kinds of meaningthat can be expressed". And we might add that there are dramatic diff'erences as well in the kinds of meunins that ntust be expressed.

[9] a. b. c. d.

The bolllesflooted / rolleclinto the cave. They bounced / kttocketl the ball into the street. They kicketl/ puslted / luughedNigel out of the pub. O'Riley drank Murpheyunder the table.

4.2.3 Typologicalsemantics
In an importantarticlepublishedin l98-5, Talmy did some-troundbreakin-u work in tt'pological le.rirul semarttic.s. He deals with a large number of aspects of verbal senanticsany one of which could have irnportantin-rplicationsfbr a theory of translation. For the purposes of this chapterwe can consideronly one of them, one that has often been a sourceof diftculty fbr translators who are unawareof the issuesinvolved. Talmy points out a crucial typological dif'ference in the ways that cliff-erent languages conflate semanticfeaturesin motion verbs. The central featureof a motior.r verb would have to be MOVE. and let's assumethat by MOVE we mean move fiom point A to point B at least.In English.the semtrnticf-eature that most fiequently combines with MOVE is that of MANNER, and English has a veritablewealth of verbs in which this happens,a f'ewof which would be'.crayvl(MOVE + MANNER: usirtg oll .fbur lintbs), stumble(MOVE + MANNER: briefly losittgr:ontrolo.fone '.rlegs), vt'alk, stroll, w,under, neuncler, roum, drili, ttntble, hike, skip, suuntcr, trcripse,trot, lope,.jog, rLut,bolt, tlart, du.sh,spt'irrt, .rcr1,'r\', tLt((, ruslt, suil,.flt', tlrive, sw'irt't, and cruise. All of theseverbs expressmotion (presumably lineirr)and the manner in which such rnotion is carried out. But they alone tell us nothing about the trajectory, which Talmy and others ret'er to as PATH. lf it is necessary to expressinfbrmationaboutthe PATH. this can be done with a wide variety of .yatellites. which usually take thc form of a prepositionalphrase.(ln the fbllowin-q examples.the rnotion verb appearsin cursit'e and the satellitein bold face.) into the house. f ti I a. Philip suuntered b. Thc duck.l/ol up on the roof. c. Thc castrlway cnrw'lad up onto the beach. mttE n g l i s hh a s n u m e r o u s o t h e r v e r b sw h i c h - w h i l e n o t e s s e n t i a l l y tion verbs can readily be called into serviceas such:pu.sh, shove,.jutn1t. hop, roll, kick,ktux'k,.florfi, andeven such non motion-like verbs as ldusll and tlrink. These verbs, like the others. tell us nothing of the trajectory when used as bare verbs.but do so bv addins satellites. The patternof combining motion and mannerlexically into the verb is ref'erredto as the MOTION + MANNER CONFLATION, and is very languages. patIt is not the prel'erred common alnong the Indo-European Serniticlanguages, Polynesiau tern,however,in the Romancelan-quages,r5 Japanese, Nez Perce and languages,most Bantu and Mayan languages, the prevailin-e p a t t e r ni s M O C a d d o ( T a l m y l 9 9 l ) . I n t h e s el a n g u a g e s TION + PATH, and they tend to havea largenurnberof verbsthat conflate Spanish,for instance, has numerousverbs such as thesetwo f'eatures.16 'move up'. bujur'move down', volr,er'rnove back' e n t r a r ' e n t e r ' ,s r r b l r and cruzur'move iicross'(Slobin 1999).But theseverbssay nothingabout the MANNER in which the MOTION takesplace and Spanishhas nothing like the sentences of 9 a-d. If in Spanish one needs to expressthe MANNER. it will have to be done by adding a satellitein the fbrrn of an adverbialphraseof some kind, ofien a gerund,as in exarnplesl0ir-c: If 0] a. Las bolcllasenturon a la cuevaflotando. The bottleerttered the cavcfloating. b. El muchacl:'o cru:6 el rfo a nado. The boy cro.iser/ the river by swimming. c. Sacttntn a Juande la casaa patadas Thcy extracted John from the housewith kicks. Talmy ( 198-5: | 22) points out that one of the ways languages can ditf'er i s i n t h e " a m o u n t o f i n f b r m a t i o n t h e y c a n e x p r e s si n a b a c k g r o u n d e d way". For instance,the fact that English lexicalizes MANNER into the v e r b m e a n st h a t M A N N E R i s , i n e t f b c t .b a c k g r o u n d e dB . ecause Spanish expresses M A N N E R b y a d d i n g a n a d v e r b i a lp h r a s e ,i t i s n e c e s s a r i l y foregrounded. So a good Spanishtranslation of an En-slish movementsentence may well not include any mention of MANNER.

The Rourance lan-{ua-qcs seem to be the only branch within the lndo Europcan family that typically conlliitcs MOVE and PATH. '"English h a s a f c w o l ' t h c s c v c l b s , n r o s t l y L u t i n a t e , s u c h a s e n t t ' r , e . r i t ,e . t t r u ( t , i r l t r ! ) r l t t c a , t t s c e n t l , d e . s c c n d ,t r e r e r s e ( s e e G o d d a r d , 1 9 9 8 ) . B c c a u s e o f t h e i l L a t i n o r r - q i n . t h c y s o u n d s t i l t e d i n c o n t c x t s i n w h i c h t h c y w o r . r l db c c o r r r p l e t e l y n o r m a l i n S p a n i s h .

''

t28

i.st i t' Tlrcttrt Arlvutrt'c,si n Lin g,u

L. Rotrttld Ro.;.s

t29

I
Talrny ( 199I ) considersPATH ol'movemenrcore informallort. Those l i k e S p a n i s ht h a t m a p s u c h c o r e i n t o r m a t i o no n t o t h e v e r b i t languages In contrast. languages. self haveli'rr mirtg verbsand arc called le rb-/i'arned like English that rnapsuchcore inlbrntationas the PATH thoselangua-ses sutellite,s and are said to be crf movement onto a satellitehave.f't'uuting languages. soteI I it e-.fronring lanSlobin ( 1999).bLrildingon Talmy's work, takes the varb-.frarned guage/ sutellite-t'i'crnrerl languagetypology further, by studying how they , nd by so doing. rrakesthis typology even more b e h a v ei n d i s c o u r s e a h a v ee l i c i t e ds p o n t a n e r e l e v a n tt o t r a n s l a t i o nS . l o b i na n d h i s c o l l e a g u e s 'the fi'og stories' ous narratives basedon a wordlesspicturebook they call a b o u ta l o s t f r o g a n d a l i t t l e b o y a n d h i s d o g w h o g o l o o k i n g f b r i t . S l o b i n f}orn chilclrenand adults has usedthe book to gathel numerousnarratives The picturestoly is packecl in Spain.Latin America and the tJnited States. l L ni c l e a l t h e u u r u t i r e s s e r v el L s ) n dt h e r e f i l r e w i t h a c t i o n( i . e .r n o v e m e n t a language.Spanish.ancl tirr a cotnparisonof how a uerlr-fi'atnad database a sutellit('-fnlricrllansuage.English. dcal with all that movelnent. d se s c r i p o thc spontanettu T h e r e s e a r c h e rd si d n ' t c o n f i n et h e r n s e l v ets cl lt c t i o n s o f t h e e v e n t sd c p i c t c d i n t h e s t o r y b o o k .T h e y a l s o c c t n r p a r e t w a s d e a l t w i t h i n a n u u t b e ro f S p a n i s ha n d E , n g l i s h way that rnovement in lransllr t h e w a y r l o t i o t t e v e n t sw e r e t r e a t e d n o v e l s .a n d c v c n a n a l y z e d h e i s s t t ct i r r r t tl r a n d a p p r t l a c h ets in his analysis t i o n . S l o b i nu s e ss t a t i s t i c s e e r eh i s c o t t c l t t . o i t i s l t o t e a s vt o s u n t n t a r i z h n u r r b e rc l fd i f f e r e n ta n g l e s s tl ertns. i n v e t ' y- q c n e r a s i o n s .B u t t h i s w i l l b e a t t e n r p t e d Dr-re d i v e r s i t yo 1 ' M O T I O N + M A N N E R v c t b s t r r to the tletnendous u s e d n e a r l yt w i c e a s l n a n y r l i \ E , n - r r l i sth ga n ' a t o r s h.e E n g l i s h - s p c a k i n n of the fiog stoliesas the Spanish-speakirlg narration tinct verb typesin tl.tc'ir are richer in thctt' niirriitors that the English narratil'es dicl.suggestins cxtendc(l t h e r ea p p e a r o f m o v e n t e n tM . a n y t i r n e si n a n a l t ' a t i l e description p a t h s .w h i c h S l o b i n c a l l s . j o u n r e t ' . a t ,n d w h i c h c a n b e s p r e a do l l t o v c f arldgrtlurlcls. in terrnsof figrrre.s The journeysaredescribecl several clauses. ( i n l l . t h e d e e r )a n d t h e g r o u n di t A f i g u r ei s t h e o b j e c tw h i c h i s n r o v i n g t h e r c l a t i v e l ys t a b l eo b i e c tw i t h l e s p e c t o w h i c h t h e f i g u r e t n o v e s( i n l l . of the moventent. to intensify the actiol.l the clif'f and the water). Perhaps to tts clttLtst: ref'ers strate-gy Slobin of a narratorsofien avail thetnselves into a sinl teps o f a i o u r n e y a r ec o m p a c t e d n w h i c h s e v e r as c o m l t u t ' t i n gi , gle clause:
! ll Thc decl startsrunning anclhethrorvshiru o1'l', ovcr thc clil'l . i n t { )l l l c \ u t c t .

Three piecesof infbrntation are packed into the secondclituseof I l. Slobin saysthat there is nothin-e about verb-liarningtypology that should p r e c l u d eS p a n i s hs p e a k e r su ' s e o f c l a u s ec o m p a c t i n g . Y e t , t h o u g hc o n such as that in ll I I are very colnrnonin E,n-elish. structior.ls or.rly two cases l b u n d i n were t h e e n t i r e c o r p u so f 6 0 S p a n i s hf i o g s t o r i e s( i b i d : 2 0 2 - 3 ) . So Spanishspeakers tend to use at l.nost one prepositional phrasefbr each m o t i o n v e r b .t h u si n c l u d i n { r p i e c e only one of inlbrrnation a b o u ta g r o u n d per clause. To sun'r Lrp thllsfar: in cornplu'ison with Englishspeakcrs, Spanish narrators usc a srnallerset of r]'rotion i.erbs:tl'reyllention l-cwcr grouncl elenrents in indir,'idLral clauscs; ancl thcl' dcscribe f'elvcr clenrento s l -a j o u r n e y . Y c t t h e i rn a r r a t i v c s o.v e r a l l . s c c l nt o ' t e l l t h c s a m es t o r v ' a s I t n g l i s ha c c o u n t s . . . H o w c v e r ,r n o v e m c na t lways t a k c sp l a c ew i l h i n a p h y s i c a s l c t t i n gT . h e t w o l a n g u a g es sc c u tt o dil'l-cr. l'urther. in rclativeallocation of attention to ntovernent and s e t t i n gE . n g l i s hn . , i t hi t s r i c l rr n e a n s l i r r p a t hd e s c r i p t i o n c.a no t ' t e r . r l e a v es c t t i n g to heinltrrccl; S p a n i s hr.i , i t hi t s s p a r s ep rossibilitics. olicn elaboratcs clcscriptions ol' scttirrgs. lell ing pathto he int'crrcd. ( S l o b i n1 9 9 9 ) So it would seenr that speakels o f E n g l i s ha n d S p a n i s hh a v e c l i s t i n c t r h e t o r i c a ls t y l c s .E n g l i s h s p c a k e r s apparcrrtly p a y l n o r e a t t c n t i o nt o t h e "secrl (o be d y n a m i c so f n r o t i o ni n a n a r r a t i ' u ' e w.h i l c S p a n i s hs p e a k e r s l e d ( o r c o n s t r a i n c db ) y theirlangua-te to clevotc l e s sn a r r a t i v e attention to t h e d y n a r n i c s a n d p e r h a p ss o m e u , ' h an t t o r e i l t t c n t i ( ) nt o s t a t i c s c c n e ' ) . l o b i n( n o t c : 2 0 - 5 s e t t i n g "( i b i d : 2 0 - 5 S p)o i r r t s o u t t h a tt h e s e sante lhetorical differerrcesholcl tirl olher sutellitc-.f't'ttrtretl tLndrcrb-.fi'turlcrllanguaseshe has studiecl. S l o b i n l e a c h e ss i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s fiorn his exarnination of the corp o r a o f n o v e l s .a n d s h o w sh o w t h i s t y p o l o g i c a d l i f f b l e n c ci s d e a l tw i t h i n t r a n s l a t i o nS . panish t r a n s l a t i o no s f E n g l i s hn o v e l sr e d u c ct h e l e v e l o f d e t a i l r e g a r d i n gp a t h g i v e n i n t h e E n g l i s h o r i - r i n a l ;p r e s u n r a b l y to do o t h e r w i s ew o u l d r e s u l ti n a t r a n s l a t i o ltlh a t w o u l d s o u r r d o v e r l a d e nw i t h motion to the rnoresetting-sensitive Spanishreaders. Cclnversely. in Engl i s h t r a n s l a t i o no sf S p a n i s h novels, t h ea n t o u n t of infbrmation sivenabout the path is ol'tenincreased. Tcl refiarin fiom this would possiblyresult in a

t.t0

Atlvunt'e s i tt Li rtg ui st i c Thatt rt

L. Rttnuld Ro.s.s

1_t1

text that soundsunbearablystatic to the English ear. S l o b i n( i b i d : 2 l 8 ) b e l i e v e s t h a th i s s t u d yo f m o t i o ne v e n t s demonstratcs 'typologies that "typologiesof grantmarhaveconsequences fbr of rhetoric' of suchtypologieson usagemay be strongenoughtc) land thatl the eff'ects influencespeakers'narrativeattentionto particularconceptutrl domains". All of the exantplesin this sectinnstrongly suggest that typology has a good deal to offbr a theory of translation, and that much of this transcencls the sentence to affect the discoursein ntajor ways. It would seernthat an part of translator essential trainingshouldbe raisingthe translators' awilrenessof the typologicaldif-fbrences betweenthe sourceand targetlanguages and of the kinds of other difl'erences their respectivetypologies sl.rould ( 1 9 9 7 ) l e a d t h e m t o e x p e c t .W o n g p o i n t so u t t h a t t y p o l o g y i s i m p o r t a n t not only for the translators, but for the consultants as well: . . . t y p o l o g i c a ls t u d i e s a r c d i r e c t l yr e l e v a n t o t h e w o r k o f c o n sultancy, especially f o r t h o s ew h o r n a y n o t h a v e a n i n - d e p t h knclwledge of the language involved.Typologicalstudiesacross kinds of languages can provide us with a mappingguide to the 'type' of language one is dealingwith.

con are largely fixed by the languagefaculty, with only minor variation that "cross-linguistic and crosspossible",Wierzbicka(1992:l9) considers cultural variation are not minor but colossal". In her more recent wclrk thereto be in the neighbourhood of 60 very simple universal she assumes tfutn't v.'artt, this. primitives such as I, t'ou, someone,something.w'cutt. gootl According Dirven and Verspoor think, bec'ctnte. and batl. to sa1,,.feel, p r i m e si s ' a l m o s tc e r t a i n l y ( 1 9 9 8 : l 4 r l ) ,t h e n u m b e ro f u n i v e r s a s l emantic l e s s t h a n 1 0 0 w o r d s ' . L a n g u a g e st a k e t h e i r b a s i c s t o c k o f s i m p l e u n r versal conceptsand organize thern into complex language-specific variation.rT which are the sourceof the cross-linguistic constellations, Culture and Cosnition: Univt't'ln her 1992book entitled Sernuntics, s in C ultu re - Specific Confi gu ruti r.tns,Wierzbicka sal Hurnan Conceytt and forcefully argues tbr the conceptualdiversity of humtrn langua-tes proposesto demonstrate this to be the caseby comparingcross-linguisti(ourage, bruver)', cally terrns such as soul, mirtd, heart, fote, de.stint', pritle.t" huntilitl', ttrtd surprise,shunte,emburrassment, recklessness,.fear, 'folk' However. theseare terrnstaken fiorn English. and Wierzbicka sees even closely related no reasonwhateverto assumethat other languages, ones,will have rnatchingterms.To investigate this. she needssome way of comparing lexiconsthat allows her to avoid the trap of ethnocentrism. 'shame' Hausa O b v i o u s l yo n e c a n n o ts i r n p l ya s k h o w t o s a y in andthen 'sharne'. assume To that whateverword is given meansthe sarnething as (NSM ) get aroundthis, shehas deviseda Natural Sernantic Metalanguage basedon very simple words taken from her stock of putatively universal r') semanticprirnitives.

4.3 Cross-culturalsemantics
If Chorrrsky(1987 22) is correct about our inheriting genetically"a riclr and invariantconceptualsystemprior to any experience", then we shor"rld expect translationto be a far more straightfbrwardundertakingthan it seemsto be. Our problernsshould be limited mainly to the areasof grartimar and syntax. Even there. the problems should not be severe,sirtee C h o m s k ya l s op r e s u m e s strucl a n g u a g ets syntactic o h a v el i k e u n d e r l y i n g t u r e s .W i t h r e s p e c t o s e m a n t i e m e a n i n g .s i n c eb o t h t h e s p e a k e r s o1'the source languageand those of the tarset languagewould share the satttc invariantconceptualsystem.our only problernwould be to matchthe lexlthat cal items of the source languagewith those of the target lan-uuage in suggests expressthe same invariant concepts.E,xperience translation otherwise. W i e r z b i c k a , w h o t o g e t h e r w i t h h e r c o l l e a g u e sh a s s p e n t d e c a d e s looking into this matter.agrees that some conceptsare universalor nearly so. But she disagreessharply with Chornsky about the number of such that "the conceptualresources concepts. ofthe lexiQuoting his assertion

$ :'

" Amon-g good canclidatcs as sc the vcry hasicconccptsthat Wicrzbickaconsrdcrs mantic primcs arc: l, vou. solnconc,pcoplc/pcrson. think, know. sorrcthing/thing, want,leel, say.hear'. word. clo.happcn, ntovc,thcrc is, livc. clie.this.the srtrc, othcr. one,two, sorr.rc. good. bacl.big. snrall,rvhen/time, niany/much. now, belbrc,aljt-r'. rL long tirne, a sholt tintc. lbr sonretinre, where/placc, herc. above.belorv.I'ar', ncar. side,inside,because, if. can. vcry. more.kind of'.part ol'. like (Goddard, l998:5tt). rt Wierzbickr dealswith many termsurganized into conccptullclonrains. rraking hcr' t r e a t m e nm t o r eu s c f u lt h a nt h i s c h a p t c r ' s hricl'descriptio r n a ys u s g c s tI.H c r ( 2 0 0 1 ) lilhot Ditl JesusMeun.)rvasobtaincdtoo latc firr it to bc discussed in this nr-rblication - Editor.l [r Wierzbicka reaclily acknowlcclgcs thc tcntative naturcof her list o1' scrrirntic prirnitives,and in f'acthas nrodificdit numerous tirlcs. Br.rt she assurres that vcry sirnple conccpts and that.converscly, illc morc likclv t0 hc unir"crsal thc nrorescnlanticall), complexa conceptis, the more likely it is to bc culturc-specil'ic.

t.t2

Advtutt t'.: irt Linguistic

-l'hettrt

r"w
L. Rctnuld Ro.s.s

1-l-r

In the santples of her rvorkthat wc havehad acccss to, the rnetalani s b a s e d o n E n g l i s h s i r n p l y b e c a u s e s h e i s w r i t i n _ ti n E n g l i s h .b u t -sua-rre presurnably o n e c o u l d b a s e t h e N S M o n a n y l a n - t u a g ei n t h e w o r l c l w i e r z b i c k a u s e st h e r n e t a l a n g u a gte o clescribe t h e s c m a n t i cc o m p o n e n t s o f a l e x i c a li t e m i n a s i v e n l a n g u a g eB . - vt h e n c o r n p a r i n g the descliption with thlt of cognateu'ords in a diff'erentlangr.rage (or even the sanrelangua-se). wierzbicka arguesthat we can fiee ourselVes fl'orrrattenrptinst0 get at their rrreaning throu-oh the use of the culture-boundfirlk terrnscur-rent in oneof the languages.r') F o r e r a n t p l e .W i e r z l r i c k a tnaintains t l r a tE n e l i s hl r a sn o r n o n c l l e x e r r r r c polishenroequivalent f b r t h e P o l i s ht g s h r i "w h i c h r e f ' e r s to a particular t i o n . H o w ' e v e ri.t i s p o s s i b l e I < te . r p l u i n t h i sf ' e e l i n g i n E n g l i s hb y b r e a k i n u c l o w nt h e c < l m p l e x P o l i s l rc o n c e p t" i n l o p a r t sw h o s en A m e s d o h a v es r n r (s ib p l e E n g l i s he c l L r i v a l e n r "i d : l 2 l y . H e r - c l e s c r i p t i o f n p s k t r i l o o k sl i k c this: X t g s k t t i d oY - + X thinks s o r n c t h i r lrig k et h i s : I urnfar away t'roniY r,"'hcn I was with Y I l'cltsornething good I w ant to be with Y nctrru, il-l ',rcrer.i'ith Y nou,I wor.rld lccl sornethin!loorl I c a n n ob t cwithY now b c c l r . r so cf t h i s .X l c c l ss o r r e t h i n g hacl Herdescriptirio n f / p i A r rc r o nj u r e su p i n t h e r r i n d o 1 ' a n E n g l i s hs p c l k e r . u'ordslike lrrntre.sick, lorr,g, rtri,t.s, tto,stttl,gill, etc. Hou'ever.Wicrz[rickrr ltitra, m a i n t a i n st h a t t h e s e u , o r d sa l l d i f f e r f r r r r nt h e P o l i s h w o r d - u n t l l l o r l e a c h o t h e r i n s i g n i f i c a n t\ . \ ' a y sa . nd she proceeds eachol to arralyze ' D e s cribing t h e m t o s h o w h o w t h e y d i t t b r . l n C h a p t e r4 o f h e r b o o k . o n t h e l n d e s c l i b a b l e 's , h e t a c k l e st h e d e s c l i p t i o n sltc of nunterous concepts

'exotic' c u l t u r e ss . u c ha s t h e c k e nf l o m m o r e t o b e c u l t L r l e - s p e c i ftla holcls j u s t p r o v e t h a t n o t c u l t u r e sv a r y to . cr ainris I l o n g o t si n t h e P h i l i p p i n e sH canreveal o f s u c hc o n c e p t s . u t t o s h o wh o w a n a n a l y s i s i n t h e i rc o n c e p t sb Moreover, she suggeststhat a great deal about the cultures themselves. l n a y n o t o n l v r e f l e c tb u t a l s oe n c o u r a g e c l i f f e r e n tc .trll e x i c a ld i f f b r e n c c ."s l 2 ' 1 t . l ' e e l i n u " i b i d : r t r o d e s o l ' t h i n k i n g a n d t turespeciflc. 'friend'. She poirtts i s t h e c o n c c p to f ' O n e o f t h e c a s c ss h e e x p l i c a t e s h a v e a w o r d r e s e n l b l i n g ' f l i e n d ' .a n d t h a t w e out that ntany languages blithely translatethern fl'ornonc languageinto anotherby rleans of each owever u'hen the e. a h i - t h d e g r e c o f c o r r e s p o t r c l e n cH o t h e r ' .a s s u l l r i n g . or dris s s i m i l a r i t i ea s ppearF , norn.lor, m e a n i n go f t h e s ew o r d si s a n a l y z e de f o nd v e r y t h e y a r e t o s o f i l e o n e A n g l o S a x o n s . ' f l i e n d ' r e f ' e r s t o instance. o f . w a n t t o s p e n ctl i m e w i t h . d o t h i n g s w i t h a n d f b r . g o p l a c e sw i t h a n d rtteans sornething P o l i s hw o l d . h o r v e v c r . c o n f i d ei n . T h e c o n ' e s p o n d i n g you clo at tlte the samethint It ref'ers to a personwho dt'res very dil'f'erent. salne place you do it. If you sell f ish at the market and there is a f'ellou' acrossthe aisle ',vhosells carrots.and the two of you spend tnany hours . n dg r o u s a b o u tt h e g o v e r n l n e n ta ta . 'l k i n g ,c o r n p l a i n i n g to-uethe elv e r yd u - v . trt it t h r ' n y o u l t r e t l ' i c r r d sB i n g a b o L rt h e l c l w p r i c e o l ' f i s h r n d c a n ' o t s . th s[ atytltt w o u l d n e v e ro e c u rt o y o l r t o i n v i t c h i r n t o y o u l h o u s eo r s t t - g - g e b r . T h e P o l i s hn o t i o n g o t o t h e b e a c ht o g e t h e rT . h a t ' s w h a t t h e . / i r r r r i l r ' ifs o f ' f r i e n d ' i s s t r i k i n g l ys i m i l a l t o t h a t o l - t r t n i g oi n c e r t a i np a r t so 1 ' L a t i r t A r n e l i c a .S h e a t t l i b u t e st h e A n - u l oS a x o n c o n c e p to f f i i e n c l t o t h i s c u l t u r e ' sh a v i n - u l ' a r n i l -r rv ' ithfriends. repluced the extendcd of c-xn1 9 9 6 : 8 2 )a . f t e r p r o v i d i n ga n u t r l b t ' r I n t h e s a r n ev c i n . H r - r d s o( antples betweensuchcloselyrelatedlangua-ues of putiitivruntranslatubility " T ' h ec o n c l u s i o n like these a sF r e n c ha n d E , n g l i s h to whichexarnplcs s.a y s . point is thatcliflcrent lan-uuage ds o n o t s i n r p l yp r o v i d ed i f l e r c n t w a y s o f ' expressingthe slme ideas.but they are also difl'erentin the ntole fundadilfer m e n t a l( a n c li n t e r e s t i n gs ) ense t h a t t h e i d e a st h a t c a n b e e x p r c s s e d ' e x r t t i c ' f r o n r l a n g u a g et o l a n g u a g e . " examples. tnore Al'terexlrttrinittg H u d s o n( i b i d : 8 - i la d d s ," l t i s h a l d t u a v o i c lt h e c o n c l i r s i c l t rh l at selnantic r e l a t i v i t yi s l i r n i t e do n l y b y t h e l i r n i t so f c u l t r . r r a vla r i a t i c l na . ndit is at artl' rate certainthat thereis rnucl.r more serranticvariationbetweenlanguagcs than most of us are aware ol'." cl'ossbetwe'en semanticstl'uctures If it is the casethaf the difl'elences o linguistically c o l o s s aa l st h e a n a l y s e s o f W i e r z b i c k aa n d t h e r s a r ei n d e e d fbr a theory clf trar.rslation would appeal' suggest.then the in-rplicaticlns

r" Wicrzhicka is rrotthc l'irsl usc cxplication to o 1 ' t h r st r ' p c . F o r a s o r r r c w l r a s l irnillr' a p p r o a c h .s c r ' L r b o v a n t l l r u n s h c l( l t ) 7 7 ) . S c n r a n t i c i s tG o d d a l r i ( l 9 9 l i ) a l s o r r s r - s thc N a t u t - : rS l c t t t i t n l i cM c l a l a n g u i t g t in his wrrrk.'fhc usc ol lhc nrctalanguagc to tlcl'inc l c x i c a l c n t l i c s ( a s i n t h c I i r l l o u . i n s p a r a - u l r r p hh l as initiallr ur.nuscd sonlc \chollus b c c i i u s co l i t s s i r n p l e v o c a b u l a r v a n d s y n t a r . B u t o b v i o u s l l i t s s i r n p l i c i t y i s c s s c n t i r l if it is to u'ork.

fr

+1

t-t+

Adt'tutt c.sin Lirtgtti,stit: Theort

I. Rottuld Ros,s

/.1.t

to be quite significant. This conclusion is bound to have an impact on c e r t a i nc o r e a s s u m p t i o n s r e g a r d i n gt h e a t t a i n a b i l i t yo f e q u i v a l e n c ei n translationand is doubtlesspartially responsibletbr the currently widespreadassumptionamong translationtheoriststhat various c'legrees ancl types of sintilarity rather than equivalence are what translatorscan and do actually achieve.Even translatorsprof-essing to attain some kincl (formal, of equivalence functional,etc.) chtrracteristically hedgeby using clubious qualifying phrasesas in c'lo.re.sl rurturul eqrrivalent. H o r v i s a t h e o r yo f t r a n s l a t i o n t o d e a l w i t h s u c hc o l o s s as l ernantic vanation'l Hudson (ibid:84ff), though not ref-errins specificallyto tlanslation. proposesprototype theoryrr as a way to at least put some limits on the differences.Semantic differencesbetween lunguagesseem to ciirninish 'if rneaningsare examined in relation to prot()types'.Hudson rnentions s e v e r a ls o c i e t i e s s u c ha s t h e S e r n i n o l e L t d i a n so f O k l a h o u t aa n d F l o r i d a and the inhabitants o f t h e T r o b r i a n dI s l a n d si n w h i c h a s i n g l e r e r n t ( X ) ref-ers to all of theserelations: ( I ) fathcr (2) father's (English brother rrrrclz') ( 3 ) f a t h e r ' 's si s t e r ' s s o n( E n g l i s h coLt.sirt) (zl) lather's mother's sister's s o n( E n g l i s h ' ? ) ( - 5 )f a t h c r ' s sister's d a u g h t e r 's o n( E n g l i s h ' ? ) (6) tather'sf'ather's brother'sson(English?.) (7) father's father's s o n ' ss o n( E , n g l i s h ' l ) sister's Where En-clish has a word fbr theserelationships, they do not accurately c o i n c i d ew i t h X e x c e p tf o r n u r r b e r( 1 ) . S o i n t h e s t r i c ts e n s e E , n s l i s hh a s no term that will translateX in all or even most of its uses.X nray well s e e mc h a o t i ct o t h e s p e a k e r o s f c l t h e rl a n g u a g e sb .utin tactall ofthe uses o f X c a n b e d e r i v e db v r n e a n s o f t h r e er e l a t i v e l ys i r n p l er u l e s . r r E n g l i s h also has sonreexceptionalr"rses of the word lhtlter, suchas when it rneans prie.\t or step.titther. But if we ignore all of the derivedfbrms and focus on the prototypicalmeaningsof both Xandlhthet'. we will see that they clo i n l u c t c o i n c i t l eT \itrirt. h i s m l r y i m p o s es ( ) n l e n scmirntie e o n \ t r i L i r to ts t i c l n ,b u t t r a n s l a k l r s at the c a n h a l d l y f e s t r i c tt h e m s e l v e s to translating
r r D e v e l o p e d b r ' p s y c h o l o - u i s tE l c a n o r R o s c h . r r T h c t h r e c r u l e s a r e : A . A m a r r ' s s i s t e ri s c q u i v a l e n tt o h i s m o t h c r . B . S i b l i n g s o f t h e s a l n e s e x a r e e q r r i v a l c n t o c a c h o l h c r . C . H a l l ' s i b l i n g s u r c e q u i v a l c n tt o l i r l l - s i b l i n - e s .

differ level of prototypes.Besides,Hudson readily admits that langua-tes t h a t t r a n s latiqn i t s e e m s l o n c e p t ss ,o even in many of their prototypicac to find anotherway to deal with the problelltof sernirntic theory will l-rave variati0n.

4.4 Pragmatics
calneto the realiitnd seltranticists of languitge A nurlber of philosoplrers zation that the logical formulation of the meaning of a prtlposition r.'u'as utteranceas frequently at ocldswith the meaning of the corresponcling G r i c e'ssolution P a u l . ritishphilosopher i n n a t u r a ll a n g u a g e B expressed to the developillentof the field of pragto the problerl was fbunclational language of naturirl out ( 1975)that much clf the rneaning matics.He pointecl We ofien colnmunicatenlole thirn we actually was inf'erentialin rrature. more than we actually hear. And the problernlies not say and understand but rather in the in the semanticor syntacticrules of natural languages, ' r u l e sa n d p r i n c i p l e s ( F a s o l d I 9 9 0 ) . of conversation'

4.4.1 The cooperative PrinciPle

o f G r i c e ' s a p p r o a c hi s d o u b t l e s sh i s w e l l - k n o w n C o The cornerstone o p e r a t i v eP r i n c i p l e ( C P ) , w h i c h c o n s i s t sb a s i c a l l y i n m a k i n g o n e ' s as possibleat the juncture at as appropriate contributionto a conversation 'cooperatiott'itt terms <lf tour generalcategowhich it occurs.He clefines o n e o r m o r et t r a x i t n s : r i e s u n d e rw h i c h a p p e a r I ) Quantity (l'ol thc as inlilrmativeas is reqLrirecl l. Make your c<lntribution c x c h a n g c ) . p u r p o s c o s f t h e currcnt tllol'eitlftlrllltlive tlrallis 2. Do not tttakcytlttt'conlribtrtion rcqui red. 2) Quality I . Dtt not say rvhatyou believeto be firlse. evidencc' 2. Do not saythat for which yotr lack adecluate (Belelevant) 3) Relation J ) Martner of expt'cssiorl l. Avoidobscurity 2. AvoidambiguitY rolixity; ry 3 . B e b r i e f( a v o i du n n e c c s s a p zl. Be orderly

1.16

A t l r , t t t t t ' . si t t L i t t I t t i . t t i t

'l

ltt,,t't

Rtts.s [,. Ronttltl

l']7

Relevance t h e o r y , w h i c h G u t t u s e st o d i s c u s sB i b l e t r a n s l a t i o n (see s e c t i o n1 . 4 . 4 ) c , ontends t h a t a l l o f G r i c e ' s m a x i m sc a n b e r n e l c l e c l tothe in t h i r do n e : B e r e l e v a n t According to Grice, there are five ways in which a speakercan reacl to thesemaxims.rrThe first one. of course,is to tbllow thern.The seconcl way is tt'rviolate thern,as one would do if telling a cleliberate lie. Thirclly. a speaker can opt out of a maxim. This is infiequent.and wur.rlcl occur.. lirr e x a m p l e ,w h e n s o m e o n eh a s i n f i r r m a t i o nr e q u i r e db y t h e s p e e c he v e n t . b u t h a sb e e no b l i g e dn o t t o d i v u l g ei t , a s w h e n a p e r s o ns a y s ., M y I i p s a r e s e a l e d . ' T h ef i r u r t hp o s s i b i l i t yw o u l d b e a m a x i n r c l a s h ,a s w h e n t b l l o i i , i n g o n e n r a x i r ni m p l i e st h e v i o l a t i o no l ' a n o t h e r ; f o r e x a u r p r ei,f a p e r s o r r i s u n a b l et o f u l f i l t h e r n a x i r . n ' B ea s i n f b r r n a t i v e as is requirecl'without violating the lnaxirn 'Have adequate evidencelirr what you say.' The lnost interesting way to dealwith the nraxinrs i s t o f l o u t o n c o f t h e m .w h e n u speakerf-loutsa r.naxirn, he or she does not observeit. anclyct cannot bc accused of violating it bccauscthe infiaction is su r-rtterly obvi<lr-rs that thc speaker k n o w s h e o r s h e i s n o t o b s e r v i n st h e m a x i m a n d k n o w s t h a t e r c r y b o d y e l s ei n v o l v e d i r r t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n knowsrrrco. T h i s t a k e su s t o t h e n o t i o no l " c o n v e r s a t i c l n a l p l i c a t L l l ' e 'c im .o n r . , e r . s u tional implicatltres are what rnakcsit possible ltr a speaker to conrnrunie irtc t o t h e h e a l e rm o r e t h a n w h a t i s a c t u a l l ys a i d .L e t ' s l o o k a t o n e o f G r i c e' s exanrples: f l2l A i s s t a n d i r .b rg y anobviously i n r n r o h i l i z ec ca l ra n ci ls approacl.rcd by B anclthe lblktwing cxchange take s placc: A : I a r no u t o l ' p e t r o l . B: Thcrc is a garagcarour.rd the corner-.

t l3I

r andarc trying ttl decidewhere A and B arcgoingout fbr dinne placc. takcs g o , w h c n t h ef b l l o w i n ge x c h a n g e t h c ys h o u l d fbod'l go we fbr Chinese A: Shall B : I h a v eh i g hb l o o dp r c s s u r e .

l i t e r a l l y , i t d o e s n o t s e e n ll i k e t n u c h o f a n Looking at B's response a b c l uw t h a tk i n d o f . h a s a s k e da y e s / n oq u e s t i o n a n s w e rt o A ' s q u e s t i o n A foorl they should go firr and B respondsby giving A some information about his health, thereby flouting the Il-raximof relevance.However A and will therefbrelook coopet'ative will normally assumethat B is beit.tg fbr some way to make senseof what B has said. Both tlf thenr are aware the Chineselbod is olien high in sodiup and that sodium is to be avqided The irnplicaturethen is that B f'eels by people with high blood pressure. about not eat Chinesefilod; that is, his afflrrnativestatement that he shor.rld l t l l s w e rt o t h e q u e s t i o n . a negutive h i s h e a l t ha c t u a l l yc o n s t i t u t c s today that cotnrnuniclLIn genelal. cgmmunication theoristsitssul-ne ttl be a t'ewdecades ever thought it was than tion is vastly mole inf-erential of l a p a c i t yt h a t m a k e s t n u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g a g o . B u t t h e i n t ' e r e n t i ac s p e c ch p a r t i c L r l a r i n a p a r t i c i p a n t s thatthe possible requires implicatures In of assurnptions . e x a n l p l eI l 3 l ' b t l t h p a r t i c i e v e n ts h a r ea l a r g en u r n b e r f b o d i s h i g h i n s o d i u r na n d h a tC h i n e s e p a n t su l u s ts h a l et h e a s s u n t p t i o nts tbr the implicature that sodiurnis bad firr peoplewith high blood pressure to be made and corlectly int'crred.And it is r"ery likely that one and the ctlmsameexchangebetweendifterent setsof participantswill -eenerate ( K e m p s o n1 9 7 - 5 ) . p l e t e l yd i f f b r e n ti m p l i c a t u r e s o 1 'G r i c e ' s r r a x i t n s . cpplication T h i s b r i n g s u s t o t h e c r o s s - l i n g u i s t ia Let's presuppose that the original readersof a text share nlany assumpt i o n s w i t h t h e a u t h o r , w h o w a s , a f t e r a l l . w r i t i n g t o t h e r n .T h e a u t h o r adjuststhe nessage to his or her audienceand is aware of the kinds of H o w e v e r ,t h e implicatures they will be able and arc likely to process. readers clf the sourcetext are in a different conlmunicativc of a translation situation.Dependingon how distantthey are frorn the sourcetext culturm o r e o r l e s st h e o r i - e i n a l a l l y , t . e m p o r a l la y n d l i n g u i s t i c a l l yt,h e yw i l l s h a r e author's assumptions. And to the degree that they do not share the author's assurnptions th . e y w i l l b e u n a b l et o c o r r e c t l y p r o c e s sh i s o r h e r eo m e b e n i g n i n t e r ' i m p l i c a t u r e sS . u c h c a s e sw o u l d s e e m t o n e c e s s i t a t s rescllve to help the target readership vention on the part of the translatclr

L i t e r a l l ys p c a k i n - e .' s r c s p o n s e B is irrclevant. H e s i r n p l yt e l l s A t h a t u c e r t a i nk i n d o f b u s i n e s s is located a l o u n d t h e c o r n e r .a l t h o u g hA h l L s not a s k e dh i m t h a t . Y e t A w o u l d a s s u r n e t h a t B ' s c o n t r i b u t i o ni s s o r r r e h o u relevant a n d t h a t h e i s i n d e e dc o o p e r a t i n gB . ul lbl B's participation to hc rclevant,it is necessary that he beliel'c that thc gal-age nray be open ancl p r o b a b l yh a s p e t r o l t o s e l l ( F a s o l d 1 9 9 0 ) .T h e i m p l i c a r u r ei s r h a t A . b 1 , walkin-e a s h o r ld i s t a n c ec . o u l d s o l v eh i s p r o b l e r nb y p u r c h a s i n g p c t r o la t the gara-uc around the corner.

r ' F a s o l c l ' sc x p l a n a t i o n( i b i c l : 1 3 0 ) o l ' t h e f l v c w , a v st h a t a s p c a k c r c a nr e s p o n ctl o c j r . i e e - ' s tnaxims is closell' lirllowcd sincc it is more rcader-fi'icndly than Cricc.'s own.

s'

S'

,iir

l.r8

Attytrnt e.sin Lirt.qui.sticTltcrtrt

L. Ronald Rrt,ss

l-t9

the unreachable implicature.rrThe degree to which this shoulclor evel.l can be done in the translation i t s e l f . a s o p p o s e dt o s u p p l e n r e n tts o thc translation, dependsor.r ii wide variety of communicativef'actors. The universality o f G r i c e ' sm a x i n r si s d e b a t a b l eI.s i t t h e c a s et h a t t h e sanre Coopelative Principle g o v e l n sc i v i l d i a l o g u e everylr,here ?e r t a i n l y C ( 1977)argues sonrescholars think not. Ochs-Keenan that Malagasyspeakers (Madagasclr) do not observethe rnaxim, 'Mlke your contribution lLs infornrative as is recluired.'She p o i n t so u t t h a t ' a s i n t b r r n a t i v e as is rcq u i r e d ' m e a n s a c c o r d i n gt o G r i c e , ' a s i n f b r m a t i v ea s i s r e c l u i r e d by the needsof the other person'. It is, after all, meetingthe infbrmationalneecls . o f o n e ' sc o n v e r s a t i o n a pla f t n e rt h a t m a k e so n e ' c o o p e r a t i v e 'Y et, Mrilugasv speakers are regularly unintblntative.Ochs-Keenallsuggestssonte reasonsfor this. In Malagasy society,one's lif'e is an open book to other' membersof the comrnunity.They sharea comm(ln history, carry out the sanre d a i l y a c t i v i t i e sg , o to thesatne places, andin generalive theil lir,es u n d e rt h e u n r e l e n t i n g s c r u t i n yo f t h e i r n e i g h b o u l sT . h i s p l a c e se n o r m o u \ v a l u e o n t h e p c l s s e s s i oo nf ' n e w i n t b n n a t i o n ' , w h i c h t h e r e f b r ei s n o t quickly surrenderec le . t ' s l o o k a t a n o t h e re x a r n p l e : L tl,ll A cncounters B in the street rnd the lbllowing exchange takcs place: A : W h e r ei s y o u r n t o t h e r ' l B: Shc is eithcrat the houscor at the ntarket.

is the case that Malagasy speakersrvithhold intbrmatiort becausethey genuinely f-earit might turn out to be false, this would not suggestthe 'Be of informative' so much as it would a clash between inoperativeness 'Be infbrrnative'and'Don't say thittfor which you lack adequate evii s c o l r e c t t h a t B ' s r e s p o n s ei n I l 4 l d o e s n o t dence'. If Ochs-Keeltan the implicaturethat B does not kllow communicateto Malagasyspeakers of his mother, then this would be an exalnple of an exthe whereabouts i n t p l i c a t u r e sf o r p a r t i c i p i l n t so f c h a n g et h a t w o u l d g e n e r a t ed i f f - e r e n t different cultures. Wierzbicka ( 199I ) also disputesthe universalityof Griceantype maxview of y nglocentric i m s . a r g u i n gt h a t t h e y a r e b a s e do n a s c a n d a l o u s l A 'norntal' in civil conversation. There is a needfor l'urtherresearch what is in this area.Ilowever. should it turn out that people of different cultures operatewith ditferent setsof principlesgoverningconverand languages . or t b r t r a n s l a t i o nF sationac l i v i l i t y , t h i s r v o u l dc l e a l l y h a v e i m p l i c a t i o n s i n s t a n c e , i n M a t t h e w 2 6 . 6 3 , 4 , w h e n J e s u s i s a p p e a r i n - tb e f o r e t h e the high priestdemandsthat Jesusstateundergath whether he Sanhedrin, i s s i n l p l y ,S t t e i p r r r i s t h e M e s s i a h .t h e S o n o f G o d . A n d J e s u s 'r e s p o n s e ('You said'). Understoodliterally, this answer may l-lotseem to prtrvide That is, Jesusseemsto not be cooperatall of the infbrmation recluested. of what nloved the translators in-qin Gricean terms, ancltltis is dotrbtless ' Y e s , i t i s y o u s a y " m a k i n gi t s e e r n as t h e N I V t o e x p a n dt h e a n s w e rt h u s : more like a cooperativealfirmation. It also ntakesmore explicit what the translators presumeto be the underlying speechxct. ltn ll\pcct of conllttttin nicaticln l the next section. to be discussec

M e m b e r so f a t y p i c a l W e s t e r ns o c i e t yw o u l d a s s u m et h a t B . b y n o t observing t h e n r a x i r ro f i t r f o r m a t i v e n e sis s,m a k i n ga n i m p l i c l t u r e :B c l o r . s n o t k n o w f b r s u r ew h e r eh i s m o t h e ri s . H o w e v e r .O c h s - K e e n a n t a i n t a i n s that no such inrplicature i s a s s u m e di n M a l a g n s l ' c u l t u r e" b e c a u s ct h e expectationthat speakerswill satist'vintbrmationirl neecls is nclt a busic 'Be iunolui" (ibid:258). That is, Ochs-Keenan sug-sests hatthe ntaxirn formative' is inoperativein Mala-tasysociety. Another reasongiven frlr the uninfirrnrativeness ol'Mala,uasv speakers is their reluctance to cor.nnrit to the tluth of new inlbrmatiou.They 'do not want to be responsiblefol the infornration comlnunicated' becauseol possible n e a s ei t t L l n l s d i r e c o n s e q u e n c ei s if it o u t t o l r e f a l s e .O f c o u r s e .

4.4.2 Speechacts
has been the aniilysisof speech One of tlre rnain interests of pra-urnatists a c t s .T h e p h i l o s o p h e r s o f l a n g u a g eA u s t i n a n d S e a r l ep o i n t e d o u t t h a t when speaketsuse langttage,they do not just say things; they also dcr things. ln English sotne of the things they do u'e ltntnist'. tltreatett.r'ttqLtest,rr)(1rn. t'rtrnplairr,ttcknow'ladge' order, beg,,u.firnt, tlettt', strggc,sl, admit, e.rpluin, rennrk, ultologi:e, critir-i:,e. stiprtlate, advise, clescribe' irrlrre, and ('ensure.English has htrndredsof such verbs used to nitnle diff'erentspeechacts artd ditf'erentlinguists have classifiedthem in nuFraser( 197-5) suggesls the fbllorving merousdiffbrent ways. For instance, soeechact taxonomv:

I H o w c v c r G u t t ( 1 9 9I : 8 9 ) I i n d s l i t t l e r e a s o nt o b c l i c v c t h a t " w l o n g i n r p l i c a t u r c sc a t r gencrllly be rernediedby cxplicltion".

110

Adyurtcc.s itt Littguistic'fhaort

L. Roruld Rrtss

111

I l5l

accuse ,d v o c a t e A . A c t s o f ' a s s e r t i n(g a a,f f i r r n . c l a i n t ,c c l r n m c n t ,c o n c e d e c.o n c l u d ce . tc.) ( a n a l y z ea .ppraise B . A c t so f e v a l u a t i n g c,e l t i f y ,c h a r a c t e r i z c . estintate. f igurc..judge,etc.) (acccpt. C. Acts reflectingspeaker attitucle acclairr.admoni s h .a g r e c a . p o l o g i z eb ,l a m e . etc.) (abbreviate D . A c t so f s t i p u l a t i n g c. h a r a c t e r i zc eh . oose. c l a s s i t yd . cscribe .e f i n e d d , esignate e.t c . ) (a , s k .b e g ,b i d . e n j o i n .i m p l o r e . E . A c t so 1 ' r e q u c s t i n g p p e a la o r d e r ,r e q u c s ts . olicit, etc.) achnonisa hd . v i s ca F . A c t so f s u g g e s t i n(g . dvocatc c.u u t i u n . p r o p o s ce , tc.) c o u n s e le . xhort. ( a b o l i s ha . brclgate G . A c t so f e x e r c i s i n g authority a. ccept. adopt. a p p r o v eb , l e s sc , o n d c r n ne .tc.) (accept, H. Acts ol'comn.ritting assumc. ilssure. commit.dedicate,prornise. undcrtakc, swcar. ctc.)

Wierzbicka considersspeechacts to be rnini speechgenres and the n a m e s g i v e n t o t h e s e g e n r e s ( q u e s t i o n ,w a r n , t h r e a t e n )t o b e f o l k a n d c u l t u r e .P r o b a b l yn o o n e pertaining to a given language taxonomies of speechacts like christenic nature language-specif the would clebate sill andprcposittgntutrinrrnv.Wierzbickais convinced ing, ubsolt'irtg.fi'otrt as promi.sirtg,orderin,g and v'untittg are no less acts such speech that closely In fact. Kaqchikel has n<lwold that corresponds language-specific. to protili.\e.The word they use to translate ;trttrniseis the sarneone they use to translateoffer and seenlsto invttlve a lower level of colnmitment thanpronrtse. Wierzbicka points out that speechilct senres are describedin tlne of two ways: frorn without or fl'om within. When they are studiedfrom with' B l e s s i n g sa n d c u r s e sl n s i s c u s si s s u e sl i k e : o u t , s h e s a y s ,r e s e a r c h e rd Y a k u t ' . W h e n t h e y a r e s t u d i e df r o m w i t h i n , w e f i n d t o p i c s m o r e l i k e in Kuna (Sherzer1983:98ff).That is, the speech namakkeand.sLurrnakkcr" genresof a given culture are viewed in their own terrls. The drawbackof the first approachis that it imposesthe fblk taxonomy of one language and upologi:ing belong trcclointirrg onto another.Words such asjlrrl,qing,, to the fblk taxonomy of En-elishspeechacts, and taxonomiesof speech So to usethernto analyzethe speechactsof act verbs are culture-specific. anotherculture is to look at the other culture's speechacts through a grid of English speechacts.The drawbackto the secondapproachis that terms to outsiders' llke namakkeor sunmukfte are not very accessible 'CommunicaAn interesting exerciseis to look throughthe dornainof n u m b e ro f e n t r i e s t i o n ' i n L o u w a n d N i d a ( 1 9 8 9 ,s e c t i o n 3 3 ) .A s u r p r i s i n g are Greek speechact verbs that have no monolexernicEnglish equivalent and therefbremust be explained.For instance, the verb parodidomi means 'to pass on traditional instruction', often implying over a long period of time. The English glossesthat are given are simply 'to instruct,to teach'. 'over a long terms which obviously lack the featuresof 'traditional' and period of time'. The verb sophronid:o is defined as 'To instructsomeone 'teach', 'train'. to behavein a wise and becomingmanner'.The -elosses are The verb entrelthomeans 'To provide instruction and training, with the implication of skill in sorneareaof practicalknowledge'. The suggested

There is no consensus regardingspecific speechact categories or theif n u m b e r ,a n d t h e r es e e m s t o b e l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o do 1 ' c o m i n g up with anythat e.g. is both universal and hasan acceptably s m a l l n u m b e ro 1 ' c a t e g o r i e(s Goddard1998:1,13) l t. i s c l e a r t h a t t h e r e i s t r e l n e n d o u s d i v e r s i t yi n t h c n u m b e ra n d k i n d s o f s p e e c h a c t st h a t o c c u r c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c a l l y E.n g l i s h h a sa n i n o r d i n a t e l y l a r g ec o l l e c t i o n . w h i l e t h e M a y a n l a n g u a g e s e e n tt o get by with very f'ew (.rrlr', tell, usk).15 Kaclchikelseemsto have no ."'et'bs that are similar Io threutert,yrurrt,atkrutv'letlge. Of cclr.rrse lacking ltalltes fbr speechacts does not necessarily rneanthat a lanclulgecannot express t h o s es p e e c h a c t s .P r e s u r n a b l y Kaqchikels c a n w a r n o t h e r so f i m p e n c l i n g yrunr.Br-rt dangereventhough they have no word l'<'tr it does seernl'easonable to assumethat a languagewcluld have names lbr those speechacts that areculturallysalient.(Wierzbicka I 9c) | : I -50) Gurnperz( 1912:I 7 lcited i n W i e r z b i c k a 1 9 9l l ) s a y s ," M e n r b e r so f a l l s o c i e t i c -r\' L ' c o s n i ze rerlain communicative routines w h i c h t h e y v i e w a sd i s t i n c tw h o l e s .s e p a r a t e fnrrrr other types of discourse". And he adds, "Tl'rese units often carry special nanres".Hyrnes(1962 I l0). considers thilt. "one good ethno-cfaphic tecltnicluefbr getting at speechevents ... is throu-qh the words which naruc thern".

1 5H o w c v c r ' , i t r n a y b c t h e c a s c t h a t M a y i r n l a n g u i i g e s s i m p l y h a v c d i l ' [ c r c n t s p e e c h a c t verhs. For instancc,according to Mar_garct Dickcman (pcrsonalcommunication). 'to spcak softly next to a river'. Jakaltek has a speechact verb that lcxicalizes

26These Kuna usedonly by plicstsin comtermsrc{cr to spccitictypesol'ceremonial on thcrc bcing only one pricsl prescnt munity rleetings.Which one is useddepends or more than one.

t12

Atlvatu'e.t in Lin,qui.stic Tltcort

L. Ronuld Rt>.s.s

11.1

g l o s s e sa r e ' t r a i n ' , ' t e a c h ' , a s i n t h e p r e v i o u sc a s e .A l l t h r e e v e r b s a r e g l o s s e d ' t e a c h 'O . b v i o u s l yi f w e t r a n s l a t e a l l t h r e ea s ' t e a c h ' w e a r e l o s ing a largepart o1'theirmeaning.plus the f act that they are diff'erent verbs. 'inE v e n i f w e e x p l o i tt h e g l o s s e s to the maxiu.tum andtranslate t h e r na s 'teach'and 'train'respectively. struct', w e a r e s t i l l n o f r n u c h c l o s e rt t l capturing t h e i l w h o l e m e a n i n g sA . l l w e w o u l d h a v es u c c e e c l ei d n d o i n gi s diff-erentiating them in the translation. The Greek verb kttuchctomui is contrnonin the writings of Paul and is u s u a l l yt r a n s l a t e d i n t o E n g l i s h a s b r n s t . B u t i n m a n y c o n t e x t si t s o u n d s forced at best (all citationsare fiorn the ly'o.rRevisedStuntlunl Ver.sion): Youtltat houstin the lan' (Rorttuns 2.2-1) ... trnd we boctst in oLtrhope(Romans 5.2) ... we ulso boastin our sufJerings (Romttns 5.-J) Lel the one yyho boasts, boast itt the Lord (l Corinthiutts 1.-ll) ... v.'e are voLu' bou,st evenLtsvouure our bousl(2 Corinthiuns I . I1) ... .sirtca nrutt.t' boustaccordingto lttrntcut sttuulurtls(2 Corinthians I 1.18) 1. [.]'I rttust bou.yt. I yt'illboastof'tlte tltingsthut slutt nn v.cukne.ss (2 Corirttltiuns I 1.30) But becausemany translatorshave sirnply assumedthat the Greek speech act verb lneansessentially the sarne thing as the English verbbou.tt. i t h a s t y p i c a l l yb e e nt r a n s l a t e d t h u s .H o ' , r , e v e r u.n l i k e b o a . t r k . ttut-hu()ttrLti i s n o t a l w a y s s e l f - f b c u s e da .nd is not necessarily a negative thing to do. Therefbre.to consistentlytranslateit as boa.rl seerllsto distort the text. 'Boasting G e o r g eD a v i s . a u t h o r o f a d i s s e r t a t i o n on in the writingsol' Paul', sitys that kuuchttomuiis often associated with the theme of //.Ir.Tt. and suggests that in Romans5.2 we translatetake tonfidence ll (personal comnunication). The senseis quite diffbrent and the Greek's ref'erence to a s p e e c ha c t n o l o n q e r e v i d e n t .D a v i d B a e r ( p e r s o n a l conrr.nunication) p o i n t so u t t h a t i n t h e S e p t u a g i ntth i s v e r t ra n d i t s n o n i i n u ld e r i v a t i v e s fiequentf y translateHebrew words relitting to prui.seand, rt'.joi<'irtg, though they apparentlydid not have these meaningsin ClassicalGreek. Son're triuslators have. in fact. translatedit thus in some contexts.rT Whatever f. 2. 3. 1. -5. 6.

, n g l i s hd o e sn o t s e e mt o h a v ea s i r n i l a rs p e e c h ri e a l l ym e a n s E kaur:huotnu act verb. Languagesnot only do not coincide in the speechacts their speakers perform, bul they ditfbr as well in tlre formulasthey use ftl'similar speech sn d t h e l e t o r et h e p o s s i b i l i t yo f s a y i n gd i a c t s .E n g l i s h h a s i r t r p e r a t i v ea 'Pass n o s tA n g l o S a x c l nE n g l i s hs p e a k e f s m e t h e s a l t . ' H c ' r w e v etr rectly, insteada are reluctantto use the imperativc in most situations.pref'erring 'Can you of indirectness: There are nunlerousde-Qrees lessdirect slrategy. 'Could you pilss me the salt'l' 'Would you ntind passpassme the salt'J' ' T h e s o u pn e e d s a l i t t l es a l t .d o n ' t y o u t h i n k ? ' W i e r z b i c k a ingme thesalt'l' t o s a y , ' C a n y o u p a s sm e t h e ( 1 9 9l ) p o i n t so u t t h i r tw h i l e i t i s p o s s i b l e t)nl)' ds a r e q u e s ( . t w o u l d b e u n c l e r s t o oa s a l t ? 'i n b o t h E n g l i s ha n d P t t l i s l t i in English. A Pole who was learrlingEnglishwould ltave to learnboth the and the fact that it is used to exof this sentence propositionalrneanin-u Poles not use questionsto make requests, clo press an inclirectrequest. d o i t . t h e y s o u n dw i l n p i s h t o P o l e s .P o l e sa r e a n d w h e n E n g l i s hs p e a k e r s and thet'efil'ecome across vastly more rnclined to use bare intperatives, Yet English speakersdo as puslty atrd overbeariugto English speaket's. not sound wirnpish to each other, they sound polite. And Poles do tttlt assertive. butjust appropriately s o u n dp u s h y t o o n e a n o t h e r , Translatorswould hirve to take this into considerationwhen translating between fwo such languages. An English translatitlnof a Polish text would be clel'ective if the Poles calle actoss as overbearing.And likew i s e .a P o l i s ht r a n s l a t i o n o f a n E n g l i s h t e x t r v o u l d n t i s st h e l n a r k i f t h e normal cliscourse cane acrossas wirnpish. Coulcl this be the reasonthat Jesus'response strangelyevasive to the Sanhedrin(cited in 4.4. I ) seenrs to us and yet is apparentlyunderstoodas an affinnation by his jud-ees'? Translatorsshould not only receive training in basic speechact theory. but also with respectto the particular speechacts ancl fbrmulas of the s o u r c el a n g u a g ei n c o n t r a s tt o t h o s eo f t h e t a r g e t l a n u u a g e w . hich they s h o u l db e t a u g h tt o i d e n t i f y . r s

'n I F o r e x a m p l e , P s a l r r - 5 . Il : e x u l t ' ( N z , x ' R c y i s c i S t u t u l u n l V e r . s i o r t( N R S V ) ) : ' r e joicc' Cotttcnll)()nt r.\' Ett,qli.;lr l / c r . t i o t t ( C E V ) ) : P s a l r n t i 9 . l 7 : ' e x u l r ' ( N R S V ) ; ' b c happy'(CEV).

For an in-depth discussion of lhc sociocultulal rcasons lbr the degrec ol-dircctttcss with which a rcquest is lbrmulatcd, scc Btoln and Levinson ( l9ti7). For an applicat i o n o l ' t h c i r s t u d y t o u B i b l e t r a n s l a t i o np l o b l c m , s c c W i l t 1 l t ) 9 6 ) .

t14

it' Tltctt rt Advo ttte,si n Li rtg ui.st

[. Rorurltl Rttst

t15

4.5 Sociolinguistics
u s ei n i t s S o c i o l i n g u i s t i cc sa n b e b r o a d l yd e l l n e da s t h e s t u d yo f l a n g u a g e t c tc o n t n t u n i s o c i a lc o n t e x t .S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c c s a n h e l p u s r e l a t es p e a k e r s ties, teaseapart dill'erent registersand dialects,get a better glasp of the ,e e k s o l u m u l t i l i n g u a lw o r l d i n w h i c h t h e b i b l i c a l c u l t u r e sc o - e x i s t e c ls l a n g u a g e u s e l a n g u a g e to better' ancl t i o n st o t h e d i t f i c u l t i s s u eo f i n c l u s i v e reflect the nature ol'interpersonalrelationshipsor sclcialdeixis. Because a s r . r b s t a n t i a lm o u n t l - r a s b e e n w l i t t e n a b o u t t h e a p p l i c a t i o no f s o c i t ' w e w i l l c o n s i d e ro n l y o n e e x a m p l e o f i t s l i n g u i s t i c st o t r a n s l a t i o n , r " rmp()rtance. of the personal(sociall reluSocial deixis is the -grarrmaticalization tionships that obtairr between interlocutorsand eveu between a speaker' anclsomeonewho is not presentin the speechevent but is being talked about. This crucial area has often been ignored by Bible translatorsin l a r k i n gi r i m i t h a s n o c l e a rg r a t t r m i t t i c a m a n y p a r t so t ' t h e w o r l d b e c a u s e such as Spanish.Portuguese. the biblical languages.In many lar.rguages Gernranand French there is a two-way split in the grammar betweenthe 'fanriliar' 'forrnal' B r o w n a n d G i l r n i r n( 1 9 5 0 ) , i r t ftrrms.r" so-called and 'Pronouns of power and solidarity',useV and T (fiorn article their serninal The V two fonlts respectively. the French loa.sand rrr) to lepresentthesefbrm is used to reflect social distance and the T form to reflect social closeness. betrveeninterloculike Spanishall dyadic relationships In languages t o r s m u s t b e d e f i n e d a s a s y m m e t r i c a l V V o r T T r e l a t i o n s h i po r . l T r e l a t i o n s h i pi.n t h e c a s eo f i n t e r ' a l t e r n a t i v e l ya , s a u a s y m n r e t r i c aV l o c u t o r so f u n e q u a ls o c i a l r a n k . T h e r e i s n o n e u t r a lg r o u n d ; t h i s i s a n Yet. arnazingly,before the publicltitrrt inescapable fact of the grantrtrar. of the Common LanguageVersion, not a single Spanishtranslationo1'the B i b l e h a d e v e r t a k e n t h i s s o c i o l i n g L r i s tt ia c c t i n t o a c c o u n t .r e n d e r i n ga l l

as symmetricallyT T, therebygiving the relationships first/seconcl-person that y v e r yc l i a l g g u e p a r t i c i p a n to s 1 ' r ' i r t u l r l le t h a tt h e intpression erroneous p e f s o n sw h o a r e e i t h e r o c c u r si n t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t t a k e s p l a c e b e t w e e n (Ross 199-l)''l g f s o liclarity n l u t u l t l l high de-qree t l r 1 ' e ea s o c i a le c l u a l s an ellormousamoutltof distortion into the tt-xt''l This practiceintrocluces p l a c e st h e o n u s 0 f c o r perspective t l . o ma s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c Translating sq u a l e l yo n t h e s h o u l d e r s b i b l i c a l I e l i t t i o r t s h i ps go u n t l e s s r e c t l ya s s e s s i n c When Abraham ts of the translator.Olien there are clear contextualcues. rntster/servallt talking to his servatlt.there is ln obvious asvmmetrical . u t e v e ni n l e s sa p p a r g r a u t m a t i c ae l x p r e s s i o nB t h a tr e q u i r e s relationship all the g u e s si s 1 a r b e t t e rt h a n s i m p l y l e v e l l i n - q e n t c a s e s ,a n e d u c a t e d n theuhole tert. r e l a t i o n s h i Pis fbr translation. problems s o s ee v e n m o r e c h a l l e n g i n g S o m el a n g u a g e p ( 1996: l 2 4 f f . c i t i n g d a t af r o m M c G i v n e y ' 1 9 9 3 ) d e . irdson F o r i n s t a n c eH spokenin Kenya.Mijikenda, fbr Mijikenda,a language rhe situarion scribes u silgular pronoull fbr T arld a like a number of Westernlalgulges. Ltses w e s t e r n l a n g u a g e st,h e c h o i c eo f p l u r a l p r o n o u nf b r V . H o w e v e r u n l i k e to which the spelker generations by the respectiVe pronoun is determinecl generation belongsttl the satrle belong.lfthe addressee and the addressee v. This use as the parentsof the speaker.then the speakeris obliged to fact aloue corrld muke it seenl thirt ptlwer is a factor. But the speakeris as obligeclto use v also when speakingto personsof the same-qeneration , hile in h i s o r h e r c h i l d r e na n c lt h e u s e o f T a n d v i s a l w a y s r e c i p r o c a lw W h a t h a p p e n sw h e n power-basec sly s t e m sn o n r e c i p r o c i t yi s t h e n o r m ' use T with Speakers the generationgap spiinsmore than one generation'? of their V with addressees addressees of their granclpat'ents' -eeneration, etc. Mijikenclasocietiesare close knit. so greatgrandparents' generation. schc-me typically people are aware 0f how 0thersfit into the generational of things. l e n e r a t i g n ailn O f c o u r s et h e b i b l i c a l t e x t d o e s p r o v i d e s u b s t a n t i ag . L r tt h e r e a r e c o u l ) t l e s s f o r n r a t i o na b o u t n u t r t e r o u s b i b l i c a l c h a r a c t e r sB

r " F o t c x a r n p l c .L o u * ' ( l 9 1 1 6 ) . c l e W a a l c l . r n d N i d a ( l c ) U 6 ) . " ' T h i s i s r e a l l y a n o v c r ' - s i r l p l i l ' i c a t i o n , s i n c e m a n l s o c i a l l i r t ' c e sc o r l e i n t o p l a y h c l c . 'fornral' t i t l ' m s : r r c u s e d w i t h p e r s o n sc o n s i d c r c d t o b e s o c i a l l y ' I n n r a n y l a n - r u a g e st h e 'l'unriliar' l i r r r t i s l r c u s c d t < td c n o t e s o c i a l i n l c l i s u p c r i o r ( ) r r n ( ) r cp o r v c r t u l . w h i l c t h c and this is indeed the uay nlost of thcsr'systentsbcgan. ority ol powerlessncss, Howcvcr'. as Brown antl Gilrlan (1960) point out. such systcms tcnd to evolvc inttr but rlther .vtlilurit.t/rttttr.toliothels irr whiclr tlre axis is no longerpour,r/7tovt'crlt.ts, t l u r i t t ' , a n d o t i c n b o t h a x c s c o n r p c t c d u r i n g a p r o t t ' a c t e dp e r i o d o f t r a n s i t i o n .

rrln

.l t h o u g h t h c t h i s c l i s t i r r c t i o na F r c n c h t h c r c i s s t i l l n o B i b l e t r a n s l a t i o nt h a t r . n a k c s d i s c t t s s i o n 's c c [ ' i t e r F o r o f ' t h a t S p a n i s h . s i m i l a r t o u s e o f s e c o n c l - p cs i s p r o n o L l n s l on C o n t c s : c ( l ( ) ( )| i r ) J I ( ) ( ) l ) . tt I n s o m e l a n g u a g c s 0 f S o u t h e a s tA s i a , t h e e x p r c s s i o u t l l - s o c i a l d e i x i s i s i r g r c a t d c a l m o r e c o m p l c x . i n v o l v i n g s u h s t a n t i a l e x i c a l s h i l t s a t r d n l a t r v m o r c l c v r - l so l r c l a t i v c s t a t u s .F o r d i s c u s s i o n . s e e H a t t o t r ( 1 9 7 - l a n d 1 9 7 9 ) '

146

Atlvun<'e.ti tt Lin gui st ic Tltt,tt 11

[.. RotruldRo:.s

t17

c a s e sw h e r e t h e r e a d e ri s g i v e n n o c l u e a s t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e generations of two interlocr-rtors . h a t w e r e t h e r e s p e c t i v eg e n e r a t i o n so f J e s u s W a n d N i c o d e m u sf,b r i n s t a n c e 'Ilt i s l i k e l y l h a t N i c o d e r n u s w a s o l c l e rg . ivr.n his statusin the Jewish cornmunity, but was he one generationolder clr two? Such infbnnation is not grammaticalizedin the biblical langLrages. ancl yet presumably must be known in clrderto choose the apprulpriutc pfon()un.

as an approachto the study of natural lanlevel linguistics is inadequate guage. One of the reasonstor this is the awarenessthat rnuch of what length is determinedby what happensin any real utteraltceof sentetrce to snd even what is expected i n p r e l i o u s s e n t e n c ea h a sb e e n h a p p e n i n g tcllotlk besf f u n c t i o n a l i s t s h a p p e ni n f o l l o w i n g o n e s .T h e w i l l i n - e n e so rvithin and to tocus on the role clf grammaticalstructures yond the sentence frolll thtlse velv ate different questions they ask that the a context ntealts t h a t a f o r m a l l i n g u i s tw o u l d a s k . F o r e r a m p l e . w h i l e C h o m s k y a n d h i s ilre derived (i.e. what is in how passivesentences disciplesare interested in disanitlystsare more interested their underlying structure),ciiscourse to grammatical voices, decides given choice of speaker, a why a covering usethe passivevoice in a particularcontextratherthan some othet voice. What work is the passivevoice doing in this particulitrcontext'l And the answer will nearly always be found outside the sentenceof which the passiveverb is a part. Therelbre,it seentsclear that even to do good sen' p e e ro u t ' b e y o n dt h e )ut it, . n e m u s t ,a s G r i m e s( 1 9 7 - 5p t e n c el i n g u i s t i c so itself. confinesof the sentence stluctul'eis ucctlltntAt least as irtrportantas accountingfbr sentence of the discoulsethat cannoteven be ing fbr the myriad structuralf'eatures participantsneed to be linked to For example, level. seenat the sentence eventsthey participatein and also to other mentionsof the same partiei. n d t h e w a y s p a r t i c i p a n t sa r e t r a c k e c l through a p a n t s ( G r i m e s l g T - 5 )a discoursevary considerablyfrorn one languageto another.By grarnmatical means participantsare introduced atstopics, maintainedfbr a while later on. It is crucial that the and then lefi behind.often to be reintroduced and translatorhe awareof the strategies usedby both the soulce langr'rage the target languagefbr participanttracking. the rnltin Discourseanalysts have long notedthitt in narrativediscourse, infbrsupportive eventsof the story line are fbregrounded. while crucial t h o s ed e a l i n g m a t i o ni s b a c k g l o u n d e dH . o p p e r ' ss t u d y\ 1 9 1 9 ) w a s a r u o n g w i t h t h e l i n g u i s t i cm a r k i n , v H . e n o t e dt h a t i n a n u m b e r of groundedness of languagesgroundedness is marked by means of gramrnaticalstrategies.For instance. thereis an initial at the beginningof Swahili narratives. -/i-, tensenrarker.otien the pretcrit afflx which seer.ns to define the tense for the fbllowing discourse. Frorn that point on, evelttsthat constitutepart other events, of the main story line are markedwith the t'ffix -ka-, whereas ones, arremarked by other verbal at: such as explanatoryor concLlrrent fixes such as -ki-. Similarly. Hopper pointed out that Rotnancelan-{uages

4.6 Discourseanalysis
Discourse analysis d e a l sw r t h v i r t u a l l ya n y a s p e c o t f language u s e( F a s o l c l . 1990:2-5T ) .h e l l e l d i s s o b r o a d t h a t i t i s o t i e n i n c l u d e da s a n e s s e n t i a l c o r n p o n e no t f o t h e r s u b d i s c i p l i n eo sf l i n g u i s t i c s s u c ha s s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s ( e . g . S c h i f f r i n . 1 9 9 4 ) . I t s s o u r c eo f d a t a a r e r e a l t e x t s . and pragmatics whetherwrittetror oral, takeuas unified w,holes. This cltstinguishes it fl'or-n most versionsol'fbrmal linguistics,the sourceof whosedata is the ima_uination of the linguist, who makes up his own corpus in the form of s e n t e r l c ed se s i g n e d to suithisparticular a n a l y t i c ap l urposes anddeprived of any real-wol'ldcontext.Discourseanalysts (genuwork with Lttteren((,,\ ine acts of conrmunicationcarried out iu real contexts)and assumethat 'meaning' does not stop with the semanticcontentof the words or even of clustersof words arrangedintc'r sentences. but is largely dependentupon the context in rvhich the utteranceis produced.Discourseanalystsholcl there to be functional diff'erentiation in human langua-{e and they vrew the structure o f s p e e c ha s w a y s o f s p e a k i n ga n d n o t . j u s ta g r a m m a t i c a l c o d e l i b i d : 2 2 f f ) .T h e y l o o k a t c l i s c o u r s eo sf a n y l e n g t ha n d a s s u n r e thut c h u n k s o f l a n _ u u a gle argerthan sentences are granlratically relevant. C o t t e r e l la n d T r : r n e r( 1 9 8 9 : 2 3 0 -) I describe discourse thus: . . .d i s c o u r s h e a sa b e g i n n i r r g a.r n i d d l e anca l n e n d .a r r dt h e b e g i n n i n g c o u l d n o t b e c o n f u s e dw i t h t h e e n d ; t h c p a r t s c o u l d n o t randorrlybc interchanged and still have a reasonable cliscourse. Discourse, in tact, is characterized by coherence, n coherencc ol' s u p r a - s e n t e n ts ia tr lucturc a n da c o h e r e u co ef t o p i c .T h a t i s t o s a y tlrere i s a r e l a t i o n s h ib pe t w e e n t h es e n t e n c e w sh i c l rc o n s t i t u t a c nv p h i c h i n v o l v e sb o t hg r a n t r r u t i c a discourse a. r e l a t i o n s h iw slt r u c tureanclmeaning. M o r e a n d r n o r e l i n g u i s t sa r e r e a c h i n gt h e c o n c l u s i o nt h a t s e n t e n c e -

t18

Adwrrtt't's i tr Li n,u, u i.st i < Tltett rt

L. Ronuld Ros.s

t19

l s p e c tt.h e c e n t r a le v e n t s n l a r kg r o u n d i n gb v m e a n s o f a c o n t r a s itn r , e r b aa o 1 ' a n a r r a t i v eh e i n g i n t h e p e r l ' e c t i v e itnd the backgrounded onesin thc irnpert'ective. ways o1'distincuishBut, Hoppernoted,therearealso non-srarnrnatical ing foregroundecl tiorn backgrounded nratelial.For instirnce. lbregrounclecl in nature,whelclrs tert tends rnure towarclactiou events.clften punctLral p o r t i o n o f t h e n a r r a t i v ei s u s u a l l y r n o r e s t a t i re . the backgrounded Foregroundcdevents ale pronc to appeur in chronolo-{icalorder. to thc Glarlnratical strate-uies and otherssuch contraryof hackgrounded er,ents. and a s t h e s eh e l p t h e l i s t e n e rw e n d h i s o r h e r w a y t h r o u g ht h e d i s c o u r s e are a key partof the structure of a discourse t h a t u , o u l du n q u e s t i o n a b l y in translationwith regard to both thc have to be taken into consideration s o u r c ea n d t a r g e tl a n g u a g e s . Discourseanalystshave also contributed fo the study of liames arrcl the f ranringof texts. Brorvn and Yule ( 1983:139),fbr instance. sl'tclw hclvr, same lead radically interpredifferent titles fbr the text could to ditferent T h e i r e x a m p l ei s t a k e nf r o m A n d e r s e ne t o l ( 1 9 1 1 : 3 1 2 ) : tations. { l6l R o c k ys l o w l yg o t u p f r o m t h e m a t ,p l a n n i n g h i s e s c a p eH .c h e s i t a t ea dm o m e n t a n dt h o u g h tT . h i n g sw c r en o t g o i n gu e l l . since What bothered him most was beingheld,especially his him had beenweak.He considered the chargeagainst p r e s e ns t i t u a t i o rT r .h e l o c k t h a th c l d h i m w a ss t r o n g b , ul he thoughthe could breakit. 'A

a n a l y s i st o t r a n s l a t i o nT . h e r e s h e d e a l sw i t h a of discourse application nuch wider variety of topics than can be consideredhere. and the interestedreaderis urgedto seeher article fbr a fuller view of one of the areas of linguisticsthat has the most to offbr a theory of translation.An imporalike is Levinsohn's(2000t and consultants tant book for translators Dist'ourse Feutures tt'New' T(stunent GreL'k:A Courst'book on it'rlttlitrmqtion Structttre untl Other l)evit:es.

4.7 Information structure

and the inherentcomplexitl' of the field nrakeit irnposSpaceconstraints What can be done briefly give topic the attentionit deserves. this sible to is to describe what the study of infbrmation structureis useful lbr and Intbrmation structurehas why it should be taken seriouslvb1' translators. been studied fbr c;uitea long time by a nurllber of linguists, though not by this name. But Lambrecht's InfrtrmutionStructure known necessarily Fornr (1994) has broken new ground and is required readand Sentence ing by anyone interesfedin the field today. Larnbrecht's approachhas beenadoptedby Van Valin and LaPolla as an integralpart of their mcltttt(1991). mental S1:nta.r in a multiplicity of ways, and these Every propositioncan be expressed by the different ways are not in fiee vuriation,but ratlrerare deterl.llined n e e d so f t h e s u r r o u n d i n gd i s c o u r s ea n d t h e p e r c e i v e dc t l m m u n i c a t i c l n hearer. The speaker tailorsthe syntacticstructureof the propositionto the receiver,taking into account the linguistic context, the hearer'spresuppositions, needs. etc. At the tirneof speaking. communication his presumed is the ref'erent or is it nerv of a given noun phraseknown to the audietrce infbrmation'l If the addressee ret'erent it may be identify the to is able because to the ret'erent he has it in mind at the time, or he may have access because h e k n o w st h e t n t h e p h y s i c a le n v i r o n m e no it is preseni t r because referent,even thouglr he is not thinking about it at fhe time of the utterance. The availability of the lef'erentto the hearer is one ol'the marty things that will have an impact on the structureof a sentence. it because will determine the statusof the ref'erentwithin the sentence. Can it be consideredthe topic (old infornration)'lOr is it being introc'luced into the discourseat the time of the utterance? The fact that the speaker tailors his utterance to the hearer is a mujtrr concern fbr the translator.Becausethe translator'saudienceis diff'erent

This paragraph was read to one group of peoplefl'amedby the title 'A Wrestler PrisonerPlansHis Escape'and to anothel framed by the title thetextin radictlly diff'eri n a T i g h t C o r n e r ' .T h e t w o g r o u p si n t e r p r e t e d ent ways due to the diffcrence in framing. Granted.their sample text is But it title undecontrived,hencethe extremedifferencein interpretation. niably providesa frame for interpretingrvhatfbllows. Givin-qthe fantiliar the readertcr biblical parablethe title The prutdigul sttrtwill likely rn<tve fbcus on the reprehensible behaviourof a son who leaveshome anclsquanders his inheritance.The same parable titled The lost son will probably this parablewith the precedingones about a lead the readerto associate to be called The.fbrgivitr,< lost sheepirrrda lost coin. Or, were the petrable tl.re readerwould be rnore likely to fbcus on the father in the story .t'ather, of a rnerciful God. as a representation Zogbo ( 1988) has written a helpful article devoted specifically to the

t50

Advttnces in Linguistit Thcrtrt

L. Ronuld Ros:

t5t

["
fiorn that of the original author, there is no reasonto assumethat they possess the samepresuppositions, theoriesand communicativestrategies as the prirnary audienceand thereforeneither is there any reasonto assunrethat they will be able to make the siime inf-erences. So translators will likely need to adapt their text to their own audiencein a way thut is quite distinct from that of the sourcetext. The two key eleurentsof lnttrrmation Structure are topic and foctt.s. Lambrechtdoesnot definethernin the traditionalways. seglnentationallv. but rather relationally. Further. he does not really tie them to the traditional conceptsof old and new infbrmation. Topic, rather than being the first constituent i n t h e c l a u s e .n r u s t m e e t t h e c o n d i t i o no f ' a b o u t n e s s ' . Focus is the piece of infbrmation with respectto which the presLrpposition and the assertior.r difftr. It is not sirnply the new infbrmation.nor is it linked necessarily to a certainseglnentofthe clause,that is. the predicate. LarnbrechtdistingLrishes three dif-ferentlevels of fircr.rs and he r-rses the 'fbcus following examplesto illustratethem. The words with accent' are 'narrow i n t h e u p p e rc a s e . T h e r ei s f b c u s ' i n w h i c h a s i n g l ec o n s t i t u e nits in fbcus. I heartlyour motorcyclc brokedown. Question: Ansrver: My CAR brokedown. There are two kinds of 'broad tocus'. The first is oredicatetbcLrs: What happened to your car'? Question: Ansr.r'er: It BROKE DOWN. And finally, there is sentencefbcus, in which the cntire sentenceis fbcused: What happened'/ Question: A n s w e r :M Y C A R B R O K E D O W N . titlls within the fircus In sentence fclcr,rs. becausethe whole sentence d o r n u i nt.h e l ei s n o t o p i c . Lambrecht comparesthe way that English, French, Italian nnd Japan e s eh a n i l l et h e s ed i f t e r e n tk i n c l so f f b c u s , a n d s h o w st h a t t h e y a l l d o i t prominence,but they usea difterently. Most use some degreeof proscldic variety of marked syntacticstructures as well, such as clefting. The translator would have to knou, which kind of fbcus he is dealing with and horv it is encodedin both the sourcelanguageand the targetlan-tuage in order the sourcetext. Becauseof the fiecluentuse of to appropriatelyrepresent prosodic prominenceas a rnarkel of tocus, this would alstt have irnportant implications fbr audio translations. There is much more to infbrntationstructurethan can possiblybe dealt with here. Interestedreadersare urged to read Larnbrecht'srtronogrilph t h e m s e l v e so . r t h e s h o r t e rv e r s i o ni n V a n V a l i n a n d L a P o l l a( 1 9 9 7 ) ,r n d to explore the ways in which a study of infonnution structul.e can enricl'r our understanding of translation.

4.8 Conclusion
L i n g u i s t i c sp l a y e da n i m p o r t a n tr o l e i n B i b l e t r a n s l a t i o n in rhetwentieth century, the understanciing of its clourains and the tools filr analysisever evolving. Throu-{houtthe century. increasinglysophisticated tools were developedfbl studying languagesfrom the sound to the sentence: phon e t i c s .p h o n o l o g y ,m o r p h o l o g y a n d s y n t a x . I n t h e l a s t d e c a d e s of the century,the level of analysiswas carricd even hi-eher enabling appreciation of the function of v;rriouslower-level structllresin terms of the texts a n dt h e c o m r l u n i c a t i o n situations i n r v h i c ht h e y o c c u r .I n t h i s c h a p t e r we haveof'fbred e v i d e n c et h a t t h e n e w e r s u b d i s c i p l i n e s o f l i n g L r i s t i cs u c h a s t y p o l o g y . p r a g m a t i c ss . ociolinguistics ,i s c o u r s e d a n a l y s i sa n d c r o s s c u l t u r a l s e m a n t i c sh a v e a n e n o r m o u s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o m a k e i n B i b l e tralrslation,whether fbr the mother-tonguetranslatoror fbr consultants w o r k i n g w i t h t h e t r a n s l a t o r sT . h e s e d i s c i p l i n e se n a b l e t h e t n t o b e t t e r understand t h e p a r t - w h o l er e l a t i o n s h i p s o f t h e s o u r c et e x t a n d h o w t o represent thent in the tar-qet language. They also increase the translator's awaleness of fundamentalclifterences betweenthe sourceand tarset languages t h a t .w h e n o v e r l o o k e d c , an seriously skew thetranslati<ln.