英语话语标记语的语用翻译研究
|
摘要
话语是一种在社会环境中发生的交际活动,而翻译是检验话语在社会生活中作用的有效手段。本研究从语言功能和翻译实践相结合的跨学科角度,对英语话语标记语的翻译问题作较为全面的论述,以期丰富和完善应用语言学和翻译学科的研究体系,为语言学理论的建构和发展、翻译理论与教学带来有益启示。
话语标记语具有丰富的语篇语用功能,能够组织和促进话语连贯,反映说话人的态度情绪,帮助建立话语参与者之间的互动。本研究选取各种口语化的语料作为分析素材,对一些英译和汉译名著,特别是多种译本进行语际和语内的对比,从与翻译行为相关的实例中探讨话语标记语的功能以及翻译对策。
话语标记语是高度熟语化的语言形式,通常不再含有原来的词汇意义而是具有规约隐含。在翻译这些语言项时,译者不能简单地根据它们的字面内容翻译,而必须采取其他策略传达其中的意义。本研究认为话语标记语的意义就是其在具体语境中的交际功能,语用翻译的目的就是要实现话语标记语基于语境的语篇和人际功能对等。衡量译文质量的标准是检验话语标记语在目的语环境中的适切性和充分性。
为了验证这一假设,本研究在第六章到第九章进行了定性和定量相结合的实证分析。第六章以连词为例研析话语标记语的功能和翻译策略,并试图发掘显化和隐化手段的理据和动因。
第七章以叹词为例探讨话语标记语的功能和翻译策略。叹词是一种编码了语用意义的依赖语境的的语言表达式,反映某种言语行为或话语类型。翻译叹词不是翻译单词,而是翻译受语言因素和文化因素制约的话语意义。
第八章探讨文本类型对话语标记语翻译策略的影响。根据话语的交际目的,主要有三种文本类型:感染型、表情型和信息型。在处理话语标记语的过程中,译者应该善于识别文本的语言特征,选择符合文本特殊功能的翻译策略。文本类型理论还有助于客观评价译文的质量。
第九章先后以well和《雷雨》英译本为例探讨汉英翻译中运用话语标记语的可行性和有效性,以及必须进一步解决的问题。
本研究旨在进一步发掘话语标记语翻译研究的深度和广度,首先为话语标记语的语用翻译作出了明确的界定,其次对译文中话语标记语的省略情况进行了量化分析,揭示了造成这种翻译策略的各种原因。本研究还阐述了如何运用文本功能理论来判断话语标记语翻译手段的合理性,以及如何恰当运用话语标记语来建构自然流畅的目标语文本。这些发现对于话语标记语乃至整个话语交际的研究都具有一定的学术价值和实用价值。
话语标记语是一种重要的语用策略和话语组织策略,译者应该通过对各种背景因素的分析,做出符合语境和说话人意图的正确恰当的选择。从译者有意识、选择性的角度考察话语标记语的使用情况,要比仅仅从母语使用者的语言直觉的角度来分析和研究语言特征具有更加重大的实践指导意义。
I. Research Proposal
Research background
Over the past few decades, discourse markers (henceforth DMs) have become an intriguing object of linguistic study, as evidenced by the considerable number of research articles, seminal monographs and edited volumes published all these years. As DMs aid in spontaneous speech production and comprehension, the study of DMs allow researchers ready access to the very nature of situated spoken discourse. Researchers have approached this peripheral linguistic phenomenon from various perspectives, with varied interests and building on different frameworks, but most work with the functions of DMs in relation to their linguistic environment.
Research objective
DMs are a functional, rather than a lexical category. Besides, they are language-specific and context-sensitive. The use of DMs in English and Chinese might exhibit a certain degree of pragmatic asymmetry. Since there is usually no one-to-one correspondence between the source language and the target language, literal translation is likely to cause pragmatic failures as the translator fails to grasp the pragmatic meaning that the particular DM conveys in the ongoing interactive talk. The translator must look for a form in the target language (DM or not) that can produce identical effect on the target audience.
DMs are small words of language but boast multiple pragmatic, i.e. textual and interpersonal functions. In this paper, we aim to give a rather well-rounded picture of English DMs and their translational behaviors in Chinese. By relying on a number of theoretical and methodological frameworks and drawing rich data from an abundance of published texts, most of which world classics, we hope to present an in-depth analysis of how native speakers use these linguistic means skillfully to convey a whole range of implicit messages and how translators must strive to explore the full import of these pragmatically rich items.
Like earlier studies that were concerned with functions of DMs in utterance units, this study is also about how to capture the social and pragmatic meanings of DMs in the source text and how to reproduce them faithfully in the target language, but in greater breadth and depth. Hopefully, this dissertation can contribute to the dynamic nature of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural communication by exploring some of the untapped issues and find solutions to the previously unsolved problems.
Research questions
The main thrust of this paper is to bring out the relevance of DM functions and their appropriate and adequate translation strategies, and to offer practical suggestions to the translator when he/she is aiming at a cross-linguistic and cross-cultural pragmatic success. Toward that end, this research tries to investigate, among other questions, the following
key issues:
1. In E-C translations, does the target text need these DMs to be as coherent as the source text? What can account for the explicitation and implicitation of DMs in the target text?
2. How do different text types of translations, e.g. drama, movie, novel, call for specific treatments of DMs?
3. What are the potential values of applying DMs in C-E translations that hinge upon oral interactive discourse?
Research method
This study conducts a qualitative and a quantitative analysis, employing elements from Discourse Analysis, Conversation Analysis, Pragmatics, Systemic Functional Grammar, etc. from a primarily synchronic perspective to back up the generalization with statistical evidence. The quantitative information consists of spontaneous dyadic and multi-party conversation data drawn from various genres. The qualitative analysis involves a detailed and interpretive study of a translator’s deliberate treatment of DMs. It is hoped that these data and analyses can yield solid proof for particular hypotheses that this paper has conceived and set forth to prove.
Research outline
DMs can serve to organize and advance discourse, manifest speakers’attitude and establish the relation between discourse participants. While rendering these DMs into Chinese, the translator must pay close heed to their intended functions and seek to bring out the conversational implicatures embedded within the discourse. Given the fact that DMs are subtle words that lack lexical and conceptual meanings, it is often futile to apply conventional translation criteria to this special language group. Other means must be called for in the realization of functional equivalence between the source text and target text. This paper proposes that the core meaning of a DM is its contextual function, which consists in interpersonal and textual aspects, while the yardstick of functional equivalence is the appropriacy and adequacy of DMs in the target language environment.
To test the validity of this proposal, this paper carries out an empirical study from Chapter six to Chapter nine. Chapter six focuses on the functions of connectives as a major type of DMs. It works on a case study of and in the novel Gone with the Wind and discusses its translation strategies in two Chinese versions. It also seeks to unveil some of the motivations, e.g. linguistic constraints, translator’s styles and text types, behind the explicitation and implicitation in the rendering of connectives.
Chapter seven deals with interjections, another major type of DMs and their translation strategies. Interjections, which are peripheral context-dependent speech acts, display an array of pragmatic functions. By analyzing the universal and specific properties of interjections between and within English and Chinese, this chapter argues that an optimal translation strategy must aim at pragmatic equivalence in terms of adequacy and intended effects.
Chapter eight deals with text typology and its implications for DM translation. According to their respective priority, texts generally fall into appellative, expressive and informative types. A skilled translator knows how to identify the text functions with their linguistic features and adopt translation strategies corresponding to the specific genre or discourse variety. Applying the text typology theory serves to assess translation quality more objectively and meaningfully.
Chapter nine attempts to find out theoretical illuminations on the potential value of applying DMs in Chinese-English translations that hinge upon oral interactive discourse. After a telling evidence from a corpus of well in a number of translated works and a detailed analysis of the English version of Thunderstorm, a Chinese drama masterpiece, it is all too clear that DMs are a power linguistic tool used by translators to help highlight the speaker’s affective stance, character contour and the tangible atmosphere s/he is in. Research significance
This quantitative and qualitative combined work has practical implications for both linguistic enquiry and translation practice. The author strongly believes that the study of DMs from the perspective of translation can yield more meaningful insights than that of the intuitive use by native speakers.
II. Theoretical support
Translation studies enjoys a profound relationship with linguistics as the discipline of linguistics not only studies language per se but also treats it as a tool for generating meaning. Given the multifaceted nature of language use, it is only natural and reasonable to draw on a variety of linguistic perspectives to offer an interrelated and integrative account.
Discourse Analysis aims at developing a theory of language use as social action. It looks at both language form and function and studies both spoken discourse and written texts. While topic development and cohesion between the sentences are the major concerns of a discourse analysis of written texts, turn-taking schemes, the opening and closing of sequences, and narrative structure, are the chief domains of an analysis of spoken texts. By determining linguistic features that characterize different genres and types of talk in different social and cultural contexts, Discourse Analysis helps to aid in the comprehension and interpretation of human communication.
Pragmatic theories and principles are also a source of illumination in the study of daily communication. First and foremost, Speech-Act Theory addresses language communication from a logico-philosophical perspective. The Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle, and more recently, the Relevance Theory offer an interesting account of the choice of linguist means for the realization of a communicative act and various interpretations for the same speech event.
Conversation Analysis tries to demonstrate how utterances follow each other in an orderly and rule-governed manner. Its focus is on describing how pairs of utterances relate to each other, how interlocutors take up their turns, how talks are opened and closed, how topics are introduced, followed up and replaced, how participants react consciously to each other’s roles, rights and obligations during the exchange, and how speakers judge what to say and when.
Different from the Speech-Act Theory, Conversation Analysis sees talk as a continuous and developing process rather than as an object for post hoc analysis. However, to understand language communication, we need to go beyond the description of surface regularities of conversation and the sequential organization of discourse. Instead, we must tap into the functional causes that lie beneath.
Both the Structural–functional approach, espoused by Sinclair & Coulthard and developed by Stenstr?m, and the Systemic-functional Grammar, in the works of Halliday, view structure and function as inseparable. The former describes, in general terms, the exchange as the basic unit of conversation structure. The latter theorizes the links between language and social life and approaches conversation as a way of doing social life. All structural patterns function at one or more of the ideational, interpersonal and textual levels.
To give a complete and convincing account of how forms of language are used in communication, we need to call on insights from all of the interdisciplinary areas that view language as social interaction.
III. Overall analysis of Discourse Markers
DMs are words or phrases which are primarily used in spoken language and serve to structure the interaction.
1. Linguistic properties
Phonologically, DMs are short and reduced, they form a separate tone group. Syntactically, DMs prototypically appear in sentence initial position, outside the sentence structure or are connected to the syntactic structure loosely. In writing there is usually a comma after the DM.
Semantically, DMs have no propositional meaning, and do not affect the truth conditions of an utterance. Pragmatically, DMs are polysemous and multifunctional. Predominantly, DMs signal structural organization with discourse, and preface the speaker’s upcoming utterance with a certain tone.
2. Discourse roles
2.1 Contextualization cues
DMs are minimal in form but maximally informative about the speaker’s construal of prior talk. Without providing an explicit representation, they reflect how an utterance is related to the current discourse context. As a potential signal, DMs serve to bring elements in the immediate discourse environment to the interlocutors’attention and help integrate that information in the naturally occurring talk.
2.2 Discourse control device
DMs allow the speaker to manipulate the spontaneous conversation by establishing and maintaining control over their interlocutors, esp. when the speaker is not inclined to acknowledge something to their interest. Speakers also use DMs to adjust and modify the illocutionary force of an utterance at points where communication is at risk and is likely to break down.
3. Metadiscoursal functions
3.1 Speakers are conversationally proactive to use DMs to monitor the flow of information and metacommunicate his feelings and attitudes.
Specifically, DMs can be used as:
A Turn initiator/continuer/terminator;
A gap Filler;
A focalizer;
A softener;
A hedger;
A Repairer;
An intensifier;
A Request for attention;
A modulation mechanism: mitigate or augment the force of utterance;
A Signal to pass on a turn;
A cue to seek clarification, confirmation or agreement, etc.
3.2 The hearer uses DMs to interact with the interlocutor, confirm his attention and signal his response to the utterance. Specifically, DMs can be used as:
A backchannel verification;
A mechanism of interruption;
A Request for clarification/explanation;
A Reception/acceptance of utterance, etc.
4. Classifications
DMs generally fall into several broad categories: Inferential marker: e.g. so Stance marker: e.g. of course Evidentiality marker: e.g. you see Affective marker: e.g. oh, why Elaborate marker: e.g. I mean Response marker: e.g. well Interaction marker: e.g. you know Topic progression marker: e.g. now 5. Some commonly used DMs Y’know is a politeness marker directed towards the addressee, used to develop common ground and appeal to shared knowledge, to invite inference or save face.
Actually is a marker that signals to the addressee that what follows may contain information that he is not expecting. So is a marker that can be used to begin a new topic, or signal the return to a previous topic.
Ok is a marker that demonstrates common understanding between the participants and marks mutually verifiable properties of exchange.
Of course is a marker that can be used to signal strong agreement /disagreement, provide feedback and indicate self-correction.
On the whole, DMs can help establish common ground, seek solidarity, forge intimacy, signal alignment, reformulation, stance taking, etc. To fully appreciate this linguistic category, we need to integrate the syntactic structure of the DM, its core meaning and pragmatic function in relation to the context.
IV. Four perspectives of inquiry
1. Coherence-interactional account
Schiffrin’s interest is in developing a model of DMs within discourse coherence. She studies the semantic and grammatical status of 11 markers (oh, well, and, but, or, so, because, now, then, y’know, I mean), analyzing their functions and characteristics. Schiffrin argues that DMs contribute to the coherence of the discourse by indicating the type of coherence relations between two adjacent utterances. Local coherence in discourse is the outcome of joint efforts from interactants to integrate knowing, meaning, saying and doing. Schiffrin proposes a model of coherence in talk centering on local coherence. This model includes five planes, i.e. exchange structure, action structure, ideational structure, information state, and participation framework.
2. Syntactic-pragmatic account
Fraser defines DMs as a class of lexical expressions drawn primarily from the syntactic classes of conjunctions, adverbs, and prepositional phrase. He concentrates on the semantic and pragmatic functions of DMs. He holds that DMs signal a relationship between the interpretation of the segment they introduce (S2), and the prior segment (S1). They have a core meaning, which is procedural, not conceptual, and their more specific interpretation is negotiated by the context. Fraser argues that this procedural meaning conveyed by DMs contributes to the coherence of the discourse.
3. Relevance-cognitive account
Working under Relevance Theory which claims itself to be a more general theory of human communication, Blakemore treats DMs as a type of conventional implicature, and focuses on how DMs impose constraints on the context under which the utterance is relevant. She proposes that DMs do not have a representational meaning, but only a procedural meaning, which consists of instructions about how to manipulate the conceptual representation of the utterance.
According to Blakemore, DMs fall into one of the four categories: --DMs which allow the derivation of contextual implication(so, therefore, too, also); --DMs which strengthen an existing assumption by providing better evidence for it (after all, moreover, furthermore); --DMs which contradict an existing assumption (however, still, nevertheless, but); --DMs which specify the role of the utterance in the discourse (anyway, incidentally, by the way, finally).
Blakemore argues that DMs help establish the optimal relevance of their utterances by guiding the hearer to derive the intended contextual effect.
4. Adaptation-metapragmtic awareness account
Vershueren points out that given its three attributes, i.e. variability, negotiability and adaptability, language use is a process of making choices, linguistic and strategic, a process which is closely monitored by the metapragmatic awareness of the user. DMs reflect the adaptation effort made by the user to the context, in order to facilitate communication. DMs are also the realization of metapragmatic strategies in discourse production, as they well indicate the sensitivity of the user to the context. By adaptively managing the discourse situation, DMs serve to mould the speaker-hearer relationship according to the pragmatic force of the utterance.
Due to the sheer variety and richness in speech, as well as the dynamic and multifunctional nature of verbal communication, it is but a daunting task to reach a unified account. While some scholars think that DMs are more coherence-oriented, others believe that they are more cognitive in nature. That notwithstanding, all four analytic frameworks agree that there is a strong correlation between specific DMs and specific conversational moves and acts. In sum, it is fair to say that on certain issues the coherence theory offers more insight to the study of DMs in general and DMs translation in particular, while on other issues the relevance account, or the adaptation framework provides more theoretical support.
V. Functionalism in translation studies
To render utterances from the source text to the target text and reveal both their implied meanings and hidden purposes, one would resort to a number of theories of and about translation, notably dynamic equivalence,which is based on the principle of equivalent effect or response; Skopos theory, which is preoccupied with the purpose of translation; text linguistics, which focuses on the meaning relationship of the textual components; speech act theory, which identifies speaker intention and desired response by looking closely at the illocutionary force and perlocutionary effect of an utterance; and Systemic-Functional Grammar, which regards language as a meaning-making system.
1. Nida’s dynamic equivalence
Nida(1964/1969) points out that three basic factors need to be accounted for in translation: (1) The nature of the message: in some messages the content is of primary consideration, and in others the form must be given a higher priority. (2) The purpose of the author and of the translator: to give information on both form and content; to aim at full intelligibility of the reader so he/she may understand the full implications of the message; for imperative purposes that aim at not just understanding the translation but also at ensuring no misunderstanding of the translation. (3) The type of audience: prospective audiences differ both in decoding ability and in potential interest.
Nida further distinguishes two types of equivalence, formal vs. dynamic. In formal equivalence which focuses on the message itself, in both form and content, the translator aims at reproducing as literally and meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original. In dynamic equivalence which aims at complete“naturalness”of expression, the translator must ensure that the receptors of the message in the receptor language will respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language.
2. Skopos theory
First proposed in the late 1970s and early 1980s by Reiss & Vermeer, leaders of the German Functional School, Skopos theory stresses the importance of directing every translation at an intended audience. The purpose of the translation(i.e. skopos)determines the translation methods and strategies that are to be employed in order to produce a functionally adequate result.
Skopos theory abides by three main rules: the Skopos rule, coherence rule and fidelity rule, the latter two (called intratexual coherence and intratexual coherence respectively) being subordinates of the former.
3. Text linguistics
Text linguistics is concerned with the way the parts of a text are organized and related to one another in order to form a meaningful whole. According to Robert de Beaugrande and Wolfgang Dressler, text is“a communicative occurrence which meets seven standards of textuality”, namely: cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and inter-textuality (1981). If any of these standards are not satisfied, the text is considered not to have fulfilled its function and not to be communicative. Identifying the linguistic qualities and the motivated nature of the textual components and their relations helps to establish the overall function or communicative purpose of the source text and make the target text better received and more acceptable.
4. Speech Act Theory
Speech Act Theory, put forward by Austin and developed by Searle, addresses how language is ordinarily used. A speaker uses speech acts not only to express his/her meaning but also to influence the hearer so as to achieve some extra-linguistic goals. To accomplish a speech act sometimes involves a sequence of utterances or turns rather than a single utterance or turn.
Speech acts form a fundamental part of pragmatic discourse, and as such, they constitute an integral part of translation. The explanatory power of speech act theory to translation is mainly displayed in two aspects:
(1) Speech Act Theory influences textual coherence.
(2) Indirect speech acts highlight a necessary distinction between syntactic form and pragmatic function.
According to the speech act theory, the translator’s task is not to seek the equivalence of surface structure but to transmit the illocutionary forces of the original utterance. To achieve this purpose, the translator must conduct a thorough examination of the utterance with its context, and guarantee that the translated version brings out the appropriate communicative import with the three related acts: locutionary act, illocutionary force and perlocutionary effect.
5. Systemic-Functional Grammar
Language is a“semogenic”, or meaning-making, system (Halliay, 1985). A systemic-functional model of translation equivalence involves the six major dimensions along which language is organized: stratification, instantiation, rank, metafunction, delicacy and axis. Different kinds of equivalence bring about different values accorded by the context of situation and culture.
In the complex business of translation, the translator functions as a mediator between the source text and the target text. What is in common in these theories and concepts is that the translator has to look beyond the original text and take into account such important issues as the purpose of translation and the audience the translated work is targeted at. A translator should not only transfer what words mean in a given context, but also reproduce the impact of the original text within the confines of his/her own language system. Applying the principles and constructs of dynamic equivalence, Skopos theory, text linguistics, speech act theory and Systemic-Functional Grammar can aid the translator in his endeavour for maximal functional equivalence and offer guidance to translation problems.
VI. Functional equivalence in DM translation
DMs constitute an efficient and economical means of facilitating the smooth production and interpretation of discourse. The translator needs to capitalize on the communication possibilities offered by DMs for the rendering of speaker intention and hearer inference.
Verbal communication involves meaning negotiation, speaker-hearer interaction, and goal development. In the process of reproducing a message from one linguistic form to another, the translator is often confronted with a set of problems, esp. when a linguistic item has no equivalents across linguistic border. To tackle these problems, the translator should rely on and fully exploit contextual factors to discover the implied and intended meanings, assumptions, purposes and goals of the participants in communication. Functional equivalence can then be established and evaluated by referring original and translation to the context of situation enveloping the two texts and by examining the interplay of different contextual factors both reflected in the text and shaping it (House, 2001).
In translation, full equivalence, partial equivalence and non-equivalence are three forms of equivalence in cross-linguistic communication, with partial equivalence the most common form. As DMs are not indispensable to the logical composition of conversation, without which the discourse would fall apart, these lexical items are often omitted in the target text for the sake of brevity. The absence of DMs in the target text may not seriously affect the semantic meaning, while it may in terms of interpersonal and textual meaning.
VII. Connectives as DMs and their translation strategies
Connectives help to disambiguate the discourse structure or the speaker’s meaning. The conjunction And is used to mark that its speaker is continuing his previous train of thought. Although in most cases an utterance would have the same impact with or without
And, And helps organize a sequence of events, makes the ongoing talk easier to follow and sometimes embodies the speaker’s intentional state. And can take on a variety of discourse functions, such as a parallel marker, sequence marker, contrast marker, transition marker, result marker and evaluation marker.
Differences in linguistic conventions, translation styles and text functions give rise to differing strategies in DM translation. Since connectives are not content words, some translator simply drops them in the target text, taking them as sheer redundancy, a feature of everyday talk. Implicitation is an infrequent strategy in the translation of connectives as when the translator fails to find a ready equivalent in the target language, when the translator regards a connective as unnecessary, and/or when the translator chooses to conform to the target language conventions or specific text-type requirements. Other translators may opt for explicitation for fear that absence of connectives in the target text could make the utterance less polite, natural and coherent, and impair the interpersonal meaning to some extent. They choose to make clear what is linguistically implicit in the original text by elaborating on the message to the advantage of the target text reader.
VIII. Interjections as DMs and their translation strategies
Despite the narrow and broad views, interjections can be divided into two kinds: primary and secondary. While primary interjections are simple vocal units, secondary interjections are grammaticalized elements that have undergone pragmaticalization of meaning and syntactic reanalysis (Cuenca, 2006). Interjections are often grouped with exclamatives which signal positive or negative emotional involvement on the part of the utterer. Corpus studies show that there is a sharp discrepancy between the frequency of interjection use in Chinese and English, the latter far outnumbers the former. As a typical interjection, oh is used to propose that its producer has undergone some kind of change in his or her current state of knowledge, information, orientation or awareness (Heritage, 1984) Oh can function as an emotive, phatic, cognitive, and conative interjection. When translating this most reduced form of utterance, the translator must distinguish its discourse function and decide whether to simply leave it out, to render it into an interjection, or to put it into content words.
IX. Text types and DM translation
Translation is a purposeful activity (Nord, 2000). To translate different types of texts is to realize different purposes in accordance with the specific functions these text types are to perform.
Drama belongs to expressive text type. Drama texts are unique in that dramatic dialogues are meant more to be acted in public than to be read and reflected upon in private. Only after a play is performed out can its full potentiality be appreciated. Hence the primary purpose of drama translation should be performability. And the goal of a drama translator is to render the dialogues into the target language as actable and stageable as possible, thus achieving maximal theatrical impact. By making a skillful use of DMs in the Chinese version of The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial, the actor and translator Ying Ruocheng demonstrates how drama translation needs to conform to the oral convention of the target language for the benefit of both the actor and the audience.
Novel translation should be consistent and in line with characters’identities, tempers, roles and relations, as one of the key tasks of a fiction is to create lifelike characters. In the translation of fictional dialogues what counts most is to preserve the original speech style of the characters with their particular idiolect and idiosyncrasy. Spoken exchanges between or among characters also facilitate the development of plots and revelation of themes. Proper translation of DMs in fictional dialogues helps bring out salient features of the characters and set the tone of the story.
Audiovisual texts are a special text type characterized by their unique double mode of discourse: i.e. information is expressed through both visual and verbal texts. The limited amount of communication load and channel capacity could make the translation go as far as adaptation. In the domain of subtitling, a reductive form of translation, the translator can afford to leave out most DMs since they do not have referential meanings, and since the loss of textual and interpersonal meanings can be partly compensated for by the images and actions of the speaker/character.
X. DM use in C-E translation
Judging from the advantages they possess: to make utterances more comprehensible to the hearer/audience, to indicate that the speaker needs time to contemplate, to serve as important hints to the hearer as regards what has been said and what is about to be said, to name just a few, DMs do constitute a simple but powerful means in C-E translation for displaying speaker meaning and speaker-hearer interaction,
Perhaps the most extensively analyzed DM, the DM well is a marker of an upcoming dispreferred response, used when the response to the designated question is indirect or unexpected in nature. Well can be used on all sorts of occasions, as an initiation marker, response marker, frame marker, completion marker, repair marker, delay marker, mitigation marker, insufficiency marker, etc., serving textual and interpersonal purposes. Our small corpus seems to indicate that the use of Well in C-E translation has more to do with translation style than with translation experience and expertise.
The profusion of DM use in the English version Thunderstorm owes much to the translators’explicit style. However, to guard against a proliferated and indiscriminative use of DMs in C-E translation, the translator needs to distinguish markers with similar discourse functions and identify the specific constraints on DM use. For example, the type of speech acts, the identity of the speaker, the solidarity and power relation between interlocutors are only some of the issues that should be given serious thought of when a particular DM is picked up.
Despite the significant findings, there also remain many theoretical problems and methodological shortcomings that need to be addressed in future research.
话语标记语具有丰富的语篇语用功能,能够组织和促进话语连贯,反映说话人的态度情绪,帮助建立话语参与者之间的互动。本研究选取各种口语化的语料作为分析素材,对一些英译和汉译名著,特别是多种译本进行语际和语内的对比,从与翻译行为相关的实例中探讨话语标记语的功能以及翻译对策。
话语标记语是高度熟语化的语言形式,通常不再含有原来的词汇意义而是具有规约隐含。在翻译这些语言项时,译者不能简单地根据它们的字面内容翻译,而必须采取其他策略传达其中的意义。本研究认为话语标记语的意义就是其在具体语境中的交际功能,语用翻译的目的就是要实现话语标记语基于语境的语篇和人际功能对等。衡量译文质量的标准是检验话语标记语在目的语环境中的适切性和充分性。
为了验证这一假设,本研究在第六章到第九章进行了定性和定量相结合的实证分析。第六章以连词为例研析话语标记语的功能和翻译策略,并试图发掘显化和隐化手段的理据和动因。
第七章以叹词为例探讨话语标记语的功能和翻译策略。叹词是一种编码了语用意义的依赖语境的的语言表达式,反映某种言语行为或话语类型。翻译叹词不是翻译单词,而是翻译受语言因素和文化因素制约的话语意义。
第八章探讨文本类型对话语标记语翻译策略的影响。根据话语的交际目的,主要有三种文本类型:感染型、表情型和信息型。在处理话语标记语的过程中,译者应该善于识别文本的语言特征,选择符合文本特殊功能的翻译策略。文本类型理论还有助于客观评价译文的质量。
第九章先后以well和《雷雨》英译本为例探讨汉英翻译中运用话语标记语的可行性和有效性,以及必须进一步解决的问题。
本研究旨在进一步发掘话语标记语翻译研究的深度和广度,首先为话语标记语的语用翻译作出了明确的界定,其次对译文中话语标记语的省略情况进行了量化分析,揭示了造成这种翻译策略的各种原因。本研究还阐述了如何运用文本功能理论来判断话语标记语翻译手段的合理性,以及如何恰当运用话语标记语来建构自然流畅的目标语文本。这些发现对于话语标记语乃至整个话语交际的研究都具有一定的学术价值和实用价值。
话语标记语是一种重要的语用策略和话语组织策略,译者应该通过对各种背景因素的分析,做出符合语境和说话人意图的正确恰当的选择。从译者有意识、选择性的角度考察话语标记语的使用情况,要比仅仅从母语使用者的语言直觉的角度来分析和研究语言特征具有更加重大的实践指导意义。
I. Research Proposal
Research background
Over the past few decades, discourse markers (henceforth DMs) have become an intriguing object of linguistic study, as evidenced by the considerable number of research articles, seminal monographs and edited volumes published all these years. As DMs aid in spontaneous speech production and comprehension, the study of DMs allow researchers ready access to the very nature of situated spoken discourse. Researchers have approached this peripheral linguistic phenomenon from various perspectives, with varied interests and building on different frameworks, but most work with the functions of DMs in relation to their linguistic environment.
Research objective
DMs are a functional, rather than a lexical category. Besides, they are language-specific and context-sensitive. The use of DMs in English and Chinese might exhibit a certain degree of pragmatic asymmetry. Since there is usually no one-to-one correspondence between the source language and the target language, literal translation is likely to cause pragmatic failures as the translator fails to grasp the pragmatic meaning that the particular DM conveys in the ongoing interactive talk. The translator must look for a form in the target language (DM or not) that can produce identical effect on the target audience.
DMs are small words of language but boast multiple pragmatic, i.e. textual and interpersonal functions. In this paper, we aim to give a rather well-rounded picture of English DMs and their translational behaviors in Chinese. By relying on a number of theoretical and methodological frameworks and drawing rich data from an abundance of published texts, most of which world classics, we hope to present an in-depth analysis of how native speakers use these linguistic means skillfully to convey a whole range of implicit messages and how translators must strive to explore the full import of these pragmatically rich items.
Like earlier studies that were concerned with functions of DMs in utterance units, this study is also about how to capture the social and pragmatic meanings of DMs in the source text and how to reproduce them faithfully in the target language, but in greater breadth and depth. Hopefully, this dissertation can contribute to the dynamic nature of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural communication by exploring some of the untapped issues and find solutions to the previously unsolved problems.
Research questions
The main thrust of this paper is to bring out the relevance of DM functions and their appropriate and adequate translation strategies, and to offer practical suggestions to the translator when he/she is aiming at a cross-linguistic and cross-cultural pragmatic success. Toward that end, this research tries to investigate, among other questions, the following
key issues:
1. In E-C translations, does the target text need these DMs to be as coherent as the source text? What can account for the explicitation and implicitation of DMs in the target text?
2. How do different text types of translations, e.g. drama, movie, novel, call for specific treatments of DMs?
3. What are the potential values of applying DMs in C-E translations that hinge upon oral interactive discourse?
Research method
This study conducts a qualitative and a quantitative analysis, employing elements from Discourse Analysis, Conversation Analysis, Pragmatics, Systemic Functional Grammar, etc. from a primarily synchronic perspective to back up the generalization with statistical evidence. The quantitative information consists of spontaneous dyadic and multi-party conversation data drawn from various genres. The qualitative analysis involves a detailed and interpretive study of a translator’s deliberate treatment of DMs. It is hoped that these data and analyses can yield solid proof for particular hypotheses that this paper has conceived and set forth to prove.
Research outline
DMs can serve to organize and advance discourse, manifest speakers’attitude and establish the relation between discourse participants. While rendering these DMs into Chinese, the translator must pay close heed to their intended functions and seek to bring out the conversational implicatures embedded within the discourse. Given the fact that DMs are subtle words that lack lexical and conceptual meanings, it is often futile to apply conventional translation criteria to this special language group. Other means must be called for in the realization of functional equivalence between the source text and target text. This paper proposes that the core meaning of a DM is its contextual function, which consists in interpersonal and textual aspects, while the yardstick of functional equivalence is the appropriacy and adequacy of DMs in the target language environment.
To test the validity of this proposal, this paper carries out an empirical study from Chapter six to Chapter nine. Chapter six focuses on the functions of connectives as a major type of DMs. It works on a case study of and in the novel Gone with the Wind and discusses its translation strategies in two Chinese versions. It also seeks to unveil some of the motivations, e.g. linguistic constraints, translator’s styles and text types, behind the explicitation and implicitation in the rendering of connectives.
Chapter seven deals with interjections, another major type of DMs and their translation strategies. Interjections, which are peripheral context-dependent speech acts, display an array of pragmatic functions. By analyzing the universal and specific properties of interjections between and within English and Chinese, this chapter argues that an optimal translation strategy must aim at pragmatic equivalence in terms of adequacy and intended effects.
Chapter eight deals with text typology and its implications for DM translation. According to their respective priority, texts generally fall into appellative, expressive and informative types. A skilled translator knows how to identify the text functions with their linguistic features and adopt translation strategies corresponding to the specific genre or discourse variety. Applying the text typology theory serves to assess translation quality more objectively and meaningfully.
Chapter nine attempts to find out theoretical illuminations on the potential value of applying DMs in Chinese-English translations that hinge upon oral interactive discourse. After a telling evidence from a corpus of well in a number of translated works and a detailed analysis of the English version of Thunderstorm, a Chinese drama masterpiece, it is all too clear that DMs are a power linguistic tool used by translators to help highlight the speaker’s affective stance, character contour and the tangible atmosphere s/he is in. Research significance
This quantitative and qualitative combined work has practical implications for both linguistic enquiry and translation practice. The author strongly believes that the study of DMs from the perspective of translation can yield more meaningful insights than that of the intuitive use by native speakers.
II. Theoretical support
Translation studies enjoys a profound relationship with linguistics as the discipline of linguistics not only studies language per se but also treats it as a tool for generating meaning. Given the multifaceted nature of language use, it is only natural and reasonable to draw on a variety of linguistic perspectives to offer an interrelated and integrative account.
Discourse Analysis aims at developing a theory of language use as social action. It looks at both language form and function and studies both spoken discourse and written texts. While topic development and cohesion between the sentences are the major concerns of a discourse analysis of written texts, turn-taking schemes, the opening and closing of sequences, and narrative structure, are the chief domains of an analysis of spoken texts. By determining linguistic features that characterize different genres and types of talk in different social and cultural contexts, Discourse Analysis helps to aid in the comprehension and interpretation of human communication.
Pragmatic theories and principles are also a source of illumination in the study of daily communication. First and foremost, Speech-Act Theory addresses language communication from a logico-philosophical perspective. The Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle, and more recently, the Relevance Theory offer an interesting account of the choice of linguist means for the realization of a communicative act and various interpretations for the same speech event.
Conversation Analysis tries to demonstrate how utterances follow each other in an orderly and rule-governed manner. Its focus is on describing how pairs of utterances relate to each other, how interlocutors take up their turns, how talks are opened and closed, how topics are introduced, followed up and replaced, how participants react consciously to each other’s roles, rights and obligations during the exchange, and how speakers judge what to say and when.
Different from the Speech-Act Theory, Conversation Analysis sees talk as a continuous and developing process rather than as an object for post hoc analysis. However, to understand language communication, we need to go beyond the description of surface regularities of conversation and the sequential organization of discourse. Instead, we must tap into the functional causes that lie beneath.
Both the Structural–functional approach, espoused by Sinclair & Coulthard and developed by Stenstr?m, and the Systemic-functional Grammar, in the works of Halliday, view structure and function as inseparable. The former describes, in general terms, the exchange as the basic unit of conversation structure. The latter theorizes the links between language and social life and approaches conversation as a way of doing social life. All structural patterns function at one or more of the ideational, interpersonal and textual levels.
To give a complete and convincing account of how forms of language are used in communication, we need to call on insights from all of the interdisciplinary areas that view language as social interaction.
III. Overall analysis of Discourse Markers
DMs are words or phrases which are primarily used in spoken language and serve to structure the interaction.
1. Linguistic properties
Phonologically, DMs are short and reduced, they form a separate tone group. Syntactically, DMs prototypically appear in sentence initial position, outside the sentence structure or are connected to the syntactic structure loosely. In writing there is usually a comma after the DM.
Semantically, DMs have no propositional meaning, and do not affect the truth conditions of an utterance. Pragmatically, DMs are polysemous and multifunctional. Predominantly, DMs signal structural organization with discourse, and preface the speaker’s upcoming utterance with a certain tone.
2. Discourse roles
2.1 Contextualization cues
DMs are minimal in form but maximally informative about the speaker’s construal of prior talk. Without providing an explicit representation, they reflect how an utterance is related to the current discourse context. As a potential signal, DMs serve to bring elements in the immediate discourse environment to the interlocutors’attention and help integrate that information in the naturally occurring talk.
2.2 Discourse control device
DMs allow the speaker to manipulate the spontaneous conversation by establishing and maintaining control over their interlocutors, esp. when the speaker is not inclined to acknowledge something to their interest. Speakers also use DMs to adjust and modify the illocutionary force of an utterance at points where communication is at risk and is likely to break down.
3. Metadiscoursal functions
3.1 Speakers are conversationally proactive to use DMs to monitor the flow of information and metacommunicate his feelings and attitudes.
Specifically, DMs can be used as:
A Turn initiator/continuer/terminator;
A gap Filler;
A focalizer;
A softener;
A hedger;
A Repairer;
An intensifier;
A Request for attention;
A modulation mechanism: mitigate or augment the force of utterance;
A Signal to pass on a turn;
A cue to seek clarification, confirmation or agreement, etc.
3.2 The hearer uses DMs to interact with the interlocutor, confirm his attention and signal his response to the utterance. Specifically, DMs can be used as:
A backchannel verification;
A mechanism of interruption;
A Request for clarification/explanation;
A Reception/acceptance of utterance, etc.
4. Classifications
DMs generally fall into several broad categories: Inferential marker: e.g. so Stance marker: e.g. of course Evidentiality marker: e.g. you see Affective marker: e.g. oh, why Elaborate marker: e.g. I mean Response marker: e.g. well Interaction marker: e.g. you know Topic progression marker: e.g. now 5. Some commonly used DMs Y’know is a politeness marker directed towards the addressee, used to develop common ground and appeal to shared knowledge, to invite inference or save face.
Actually is a marker that signals to the addressee that what follows may contain information that he is not expecting. So is a marker that can be used to begin a new topic, or signal the return to a previous topic.
Ok is a marker that demonstrates common understanding between the participants and marks mutually verifiable properties of exchange.
Of course is a marker that can be used to signal strong agreement /disagreement, provide feedback and indicate self-correction.
On the whole, DMs can help establish common ground, seek solidarity, forge intimacy, signal alignment, reformulation, stance taking, etc. To fully appreciate this linguistic category, we need to integrate the syntactic structure of the DM, its core meaning and pragmatic function in relation to the context.
IV. Four perspectives of inquiry
1. Coherence-interactional account
Schiffrin’s interest is in developing a model of DMs within discourse coherence. She studies the semantic and grammatical status of 11 markers (oh, well, and, but, or, so, because, now, then, y’know, I mean), analyzing their functions and characteristics. Schiffrin argues that DMs contribute to the coherence of the discourse by indicating the type of coherence relations between two adjacent utterances. Local coherence in discourse is the outcome of joint efforts from interactants to integrate knowing, meaning, saying and doing. Schiffrin proposes a model of coherence in talk centering on local coherence. This model includes five planes, i.e. exchange structure, action structure, ideational structure, information state, and participation framework.
2. Syntactic-pragmatic account
Fraser defines DMs as a class of lexical expressions drawn primarily from the syntactic classes of conjunctions, adverbs, and prepositional phrase. He concentrates on the semantic and pragmatic functions of DMs. He holds that DMs signal a relationship between the interpretation of the segment they introduce (S2), and the prior segment (S1). They have a core meaning, which is procedural, not conceptual, and their more specific interpretation is negotiated by the context. Fraser argues that this procedural meaning conveyed by DMs contributes to the coherence of the discourse.
3. Relevance-cognitive account
Working under Relevance Theory which claims itself to be a more general theory of human communication, Blakemore treats DMs as a type of conventional implicature, and focuses on how DMs impose constraints on the context under which the utterance is relevant. She proposes that DMs do not have a representational meaning, but only a procedural meaning, which consists of instructions about how to manipulate the conceptual representation of the utterance.
According to Blakemore, DMs fall into one of the four categories: --DMs which allow the derivation of contextual implication(so, therefore, too, also); --DMs which strengthen an existing assumption by providing better evidence for it (after all, moreover, furthermore); --DMs which contradict an existing assumption (however, still, nevertheless, but); --DMs which specify the role of the utterance in the discourse (anyway, incidentally, by the way, finally).
Blakemore argues that DMs help establish the optimal relevance of their utterances by guiding the hearer to derive the intended contextual effect.
4. Adaptation-metapragmtic awareness account
Vershueren points out that given its three attributes, i.e. variability, negotiability and adaptability, language use is a process of making choices, linguistic and strategic, a process which is closely monitored by the metapragmatic awareness of the user. DMs reflect the adaptation effort made by the user to the context, in order to facilitate communication. DMs are also the realization of metapragmatic strategies in discourse production, as they well indicate the sensitivity of the user to the context. By adaptively managing the discourse situation, DMs serve to mould the speaker-hearer relationship according to the pragmatic force of the utterance.
Due to the sheer variety and richness in speech, as well as the dynamic and multifunctional nature of verbal communication, it is but a daunting task to reach a unified account. While some scholars think that DMs are more coherence-oriented, others believe that they are more cognitive in nature. That notwithstanding, all four analytic frameworks agree that there is a strong correlation between specific DMs and specific conversational moves and acts. In sum, it is fair to say that on certain issues the coherence theory offers more insight to the study of DMs in general and DMs translation in particular, while on other issues the relevance account, or the adaptation framework provides more theoretical support.
V. Functionalism in translation studies
To render utterances from the source text to the target text and reveal both their implied meanings and hidden purposes, one would resort to a number of theories of and about translation, notably dynamic equivalence,which is based on the principle of equivalent effect or response; Skopos theory, which is preoccupied with the purpose of translation; text linguistics, which focuses on the meaning relationship of the textual components; speech act theory, which identifies speaker intention and desired response by looking closely at the illocutionary force and perlocutionary effect of an utterance; and Systemic-Functional Grammar, which regards language as a meaning-making system.
1. Nida’s dynamic equivalence
Nida(1964/1969) points out that three basic factors need to be accounted for in translation: (1) The nature of the message: in some messages the content is of primary consideration, and in others the form must be given a higher priority. (2) The purpose of the author and of the translator: to give information on both form and content; to aim at full intelligibility of the reader so he/she may understand the full implications of the message; for imperative purposes that aim at not just understanding the translation but also at ensuring no misunderstanding of the translation. (3) The type of audience: prospective audiences differ both in decoding ability and in potential interest.
Nida further distinguishes two types of equivalence, formal vs. dynamic. In formal equivalence which focuses on the message itself, in both form and content, the translator aims at reproducing as literally and meaningfully as possible the form and content of the original. In dynamic equivalence which aims at complete“naturalness”of expression, the translator must ensure that the receptors of the message in the receptor language will respond to it in substantially the same manner as the receptors in the source language.
2. Skopos theory
First proposed in the late 1970s and early 1980s by Reiss & Vermeer, leaders of the German Functional School, Skopos theory stresses the importance of directing every translation at an intended audience. The purpose of the translation(i.e. skopos)determines the translation methods and strategies that are to be employed in order to produce a functionally adequate result.
Skopos theory abides by three main rules: the Skopos rule, coherence rule and fidelity rule, the latter two (called intratexual coherence and intratexual coherence respectively) being subordinates of the former.
3. Text linguistics
Text linguistics is concerned with the way the parts of a text are organized and related to one another in order to form a meaningful whole. According to Robert de Beaugrande and Wolfgang Dressler, text is“a communicative occurrence which meets seven standards of textuality”, namely: cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and inter-textuality (1981). If any of these standards are not satisfied, the text is considered not to have fulfilled its function and not to be communicative. Identifying the linguistic qualities and the motivated nature of the textual components and their relations helps to establish the overall function or communicative purpose of the source text and make the target text better received and more acceptable.
4. Speech Act Theory
Speech Act Theory, put forward by Austin and developed by Searle, addresses how language is ordinarily used. A speaker uses speech acts not only to express his/her meaning but also to influence the hearer so as to achieve some extra-linguistic goals. To accomplish a speech act sometimes involves a sequence of utterances or turns rather than a single utterance or turn.
Speech acts form a fundamental part of pragmatic discourse, and as such, they constitute an integral part of translation. The explanatory power of speech act theory to translation is mainly displayed in two aspects:
(1) Speech Act Theory influences textual coherence.
(2) Indirect speech acts highlight a necessary distinction between syntactic form and pragmatic function.
According to the speech act theory, the translator’s task is not to seek the equivalence of surface structure but to transmit the illocutionary forces of the original utterance. To achieve this purpose, the translator must conduct a thorough examination of the utterance with its context, and guarantee that the translated version brings out the appropriate communicative import with the three related acts: locutionary act, illocutionary force and perlocutionary effect.
5. Systemic-Functional Grammar
Language is a“semogenic”, or meaning-making, system (Halliay, 1985). A systemic-functional model of translation equivalence involves the six major dimensions along which language is organized: stratification, instantiation, rank, metafunction, delicacy and axis. Different kinds of equivalence bring about different values accorded by the context of situation and culture.
In the complex business of translation, the translator functions as a mediator between the source text and the target text. What is in common in these theories and concepts is that the translator has to look beyond the original text and take into account such important issues as the purpose of translation and the audience the translated work is targeted at. A translator should not only transfer what words mean in a given context, but also reproduce the impact of the original text within the confines of his/her own language system. Applying the principles and constructs of dynamic equivalence, Skopos theory, text linguistics, speech act theory and Systemic-Functional Grammar can aid the translator in his endeavour for maximal functional equivalence and offer guidance to translation problems.
VI. Functional equivalence in DM translation
DMs constitute an efficient and economical means of facilitating the smooth production and interpretation of discourse. The translator needs to capitalize on the communication possibilities offered by DMs for the rendering of speaker intention and hearer inference.
Verbal communication involves meaning negotiation, speaker-hearer interaction, and goal development. In the process of reproducing a message from one linguistic form to another, the translator is often confronted with a set of problems, esp. when a linguistic item has no equivalents across linguistic border. To tackle these problems, the translator should rely on and fully exploit contextual factors to discover the implied and intended meanings, assumptions, purposes and goals of the participants in communication. Functional equivalence can then be established and evaluated by referring original and translation to the context of situation enveloping the two texts and by examining the interplay of different contextual factors both reflected in the text and shaping it (House, 2001).
In translation, full equivalence, partial equivalence and non-equivalence are three forms of equivalence in cross-linguistic communication, with partial equivalence the most common form. As DMs are not indispensable to the logical composition of conversation, without which the discourse would fall apart, these lexical items are often omitted in the target text for the sake of brevity. The absence of DMs in the target text may not seriously affect the semantic meaning, while it may in terms of interpersonal and textual meaning.
VII. Connectives as DMs and their translation strategies
Connectives help to disambiguate the discourse structure or the speaker’s meaning. The conjunction And is used to mark that its speaker is continuing his previous train of thought. Although in most cases an utterance would have the same impact with or without
And, And helps organize a sequence of events, makes the ongoing talk easier to follow and sometimes embodies the speaker’s intentional state. And can take on a variety of discourse functions, such as a parallel marker, sequence marker, contrast marker, transition marker, result marker and evaluation marker.
Differences in linguistic conventions, translation styles and text functions give rise to differing strategies in DM translation. Since connectives are not content words, some translator simply drops them in the target text, taking them as sheer redundancy, a feature of everyday talk. Implicitation is an infrequent strategy in the translation of connectives as when the translator fails to find a ready equivalent in the target language, when the translator regards a connective as unnecessary, and/or when the translator chooses to conform to the target language conventions or specific text-type requirements. Other translators may opt for explicitation for fear that absence of connectives in the target text could make the utterance less polite, natural and coherent, and impair the interpersonal meaning to some extent. They choose to make clear what is linguistically implicit in the original text by elaborating on the message to the advantage of the target text reader.
VIII. Interjections as DMs and their translation strategies
Despite the narrow and broad views, interjections can be divided into two kinds: primary and secondary. While primary interjections are simple vocal units, secondary interjections are grammaticalized elements that have undergone pragmaticalization of meaning and syntactic reanalysis (Cuenca, 2006). Interjections are often grouped with exclamatives which signal positive or negative emotional involvement on the part of the utterer. Corpus studies show that there is a sharp discrepancy between the frequency of interjection use in Chinese and English, the latter far outnumbers the former. As a typical interjection, oh is used to propose that its producer has undergone some kind of change in his or her current state of knowledge, information, orientation or awareness (Heritage, 1984) Oh can function as an emotive, phatic, cognitive, and conative interjection. When translating this most reduced form of utterance, the translator must distinguish its discourse function and decide whether to simply leave it out, to render it into an interjection, or to put it into content words.
IX. Text types and DM translation
Translation is a purposeful activity (Nord, 2000). To translate different types of texts is to realize different purposes in accordance with the specific functions these text types are to perform.
Drama belongs to expressive text type. Drama texts are unique in that dramatic dialogues are meant more to be acted in public than to be read and reflected upon in private. Only after a play is performed out can its full potentiality be appreciated. Hence the primary purpose of drama translation should be performability. And the goal of a drama translator is to render the dialogues into the target language as actable and stageable as possible, thus achieving maximal theatrical impact. By making a skillful use of DMs in the Chinese version of The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial, the actor and translator Ying Ruocheng demonstrates how drama translation needs to conform to the oral convention of the target language for the benefit of both the actor and the audience.
Novel translation should be consistent and in line with characters’identities, tempers, roles and relations, as one of the key tasks of a fiction is to create lifelike characters. In the translation of fictional dialogues what counts most is to preserve the original speech style of the characters with their particular idiolect and idiosyncrasy. Spoken exchanges between or among characters also facilitate the development of plots and revelation of themes. Proper translation of DMs in fictional dialogues helps bring out salient features of the characters and set the tone of the story.
Audiovisual texts are a special text type characterized by their unique double mode of discourse: i.e. information is expressed through both visual and verbal texts. The limited amount of communication load and channel capacity could make the translation go as far as adaptation. In the domain of subtitling, a reductive form of translation, the translator can afford to leave out most DMs since they do not have referential meanings, and since the loss of textual and interpersonal meanings can be partly compensated for by the images and actions of the speaker/character.
X. DM use in C-E translation
Judging from the advantages they possess: to make utterances more comprehensible to the hearer/audience, to indicate that the speaker needs time to contemplate, to serve as important hints to the hearer as regards what has been said and what is about to be said, to name just a few, DMs do constitute a simple but powerful means in C-E translation for displaying speaker meaning and speaker-hearer interaction,
Perhaps the most extensively analyzed DM, the DM well is a marker of an upcoming dispreferred response, used when the response to the designated question is indirect or unexpected in nature. Well can be used on all sorts of occasions, as an initiation marker, response marker, frame marker, completion marker, repair marker, delay marker, mitigation marker, insufficiency marker, etc., serving textual and interpersonal purposes. Our small corpus seems to indicate that the use of Well in C-E translation has more to do with translation style than with translation experience and expertise.
The profusion of DM use in the English version Thunderstorm owes much to the translators’explicit style. However, to guard against a proliferated and indiscriminative use of DMs in C-E translation, the translator needs to distinguish markers with similar discourse functions and identify the specific constraints on DM use. For example, the type of speech acts, the identity of the speaker, the solidarity and power relation between interlocutors are only some of the issues that should be given serious thought of when a particular DM is picked up.
Despite the significant findings, there also remain many theoretical problems and methodological shortcomings that need to be addressed in future research.
引文
Aijmer, K. 1987. Oh and ah in English Conversation. In W. Meijs (Eds) Corpus Linguistics and Beyond:87-103. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Aijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Aijmer, K. & A. Simon-Vandenbergen. 2003. The Discourse Particle well and its Equivalents in Swedish and Dutch . Linguistics , 41(6):1123-1161.
Aijmer, K., A. Foolen & A. Simon- Vandenbergen. 2006. Pragmatic Markers in Translation: A Methodological Proposal. In K. Fischer (Eds) Approaches to Discourse Particles : 101-114. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ameka,F. 1992. Interjections: the Universal yet Neglected Part of Speech. Journal of Pragmatics ,18(2/3): 245-272
Andersen, G. 1998. The Pragmatic Marker like from a Relevance-Theoretic Perspective. In Jucker, A.H. and Y. Ziv (Eds) Discourse Markers: Description and Theory: 147-170. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Aston, E. & G. Savona.1991. Theatre as Sign-System: A Semiotics of Text and Performance. London and New York: Routledge.
Baker, M. 1992. In Other words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Bakhtin,M. M. 1953. The Problem of Speech Genres. In P. Bizzell &B. Herzberg (Eds)The Rhetoric Tradition. Readings from Classic Times to the Present: 944-963. NY: Bedford Books.
Bakhtin,M.M. & V.N.Voloshinov. 1986.Marxism and the Philosophy of Language.Trans.Matejka,Ladislav&I.R.Ti-tunik.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bassnet, S. & A. Lefevere. 2005. Constructing Cultures: Essays in Literary Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Beaugrande, R. de & Dressler, W. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London and NewYork: Longman.
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford : Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford : Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blass, R. 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boxer, D. & A. Cohen. 2007. Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning.上海:世界图书出版公司.
Cao Xueqin & Gao E. 1994. A Dream of Red Mansions. Trans. Yang Hsien-yi & Gladys Yang. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
Cao Xueqin & Gao E. 1973.The Story of the Stone. Trans. David Hawkes & John Minford. New York: Penguin Group.
Carroll, L. 1988.赵元任译. Alice’s Adventures in the Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.北京:商务印书馆.
Cohen, R. 1984. A Computational Theory of the Function of Clue Words in Argument Understanding. In: Proceedings of the10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: 251-258. Stanford, CA, USA.
Coulthard, R. M.1985. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman. Cuenca, M.J. 2000. Defining the Indefinable? Interjections. Syntaxis, 3:29-44.
Cuenca, M.J. 2006. Interjections and Pragmatic Errors in Dubbing. Meta L1, 1: 20-35.
Douglas, D. 2007. Discourse Domains: the Cognitive Context of Speaking. In Boxer, D. & A. Cohen (Eds) Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning.:25-35.上海:世界图书出版公司.
Edmondson, W. J. 1981. Spoken Discourse: A model for Analysis. London: Longman. Fischer, K. 2000. From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fleischman, S. Pragmatic Markers in Comparative Perspective: a Contribution to Cross-Language Pragmatics. Paper presented at PRAGMA 1999.
Fraser, B. 1988. Types of English Discourse Markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38:19-33.
Fraser, B. 1990. An Approach to Discourse Markers. Journal of Pragmatics,14:385-95.
Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 6: 167-190.
Fraser, B. 1999. What Are Discourse Markers(?) Journal of Pragmatics, 31:931-952.
Fung, L.& R. Carter. 2007. Discourse Markers and Spoken English: Native and Learner Use in Pedagogic Settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3): 410-429.
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gottlieb, H. 1994. Subtitling: Diagonal Translation. Perspectives, 1:158-164.
Grosz, B. J. & C. L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3):175-204.
Gumperz, J. J.1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herbert, H. C. & E. F. Schaefer. 1989. Contributing to Discourse. Cognitive Science, 13: 259-294.
Heritage, B. J. 1984. A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in
Conversation Analysis: 299-35. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2009. The Gloosy Ganoderm: Systemic Functional Linguistics and Translation.《中国翻译》,1:17-26.
Hismanoglu, M. 2010. Interjections in English: Neglected but Important Aspect of Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 6 (1):17-35.
H(?)lker, K.1991.Franzosisch Partikelforschung. Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, Vol. V. 1, 77-88.Tubingen: Niemeyer.
House, J. 2001. Politeness and Translation. in Leo Hickey(Eds) The Pragmatics of Translation. 61-65. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hussein, M. 2008. Two Accounts of DMs in English. Kashmir Journal of Language Research. available at: www.students.ncl.ac.uk.
Hymes, D. H. 1972. On Communicative Competence. In J. B. P ride & J. Holmes (Eds) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. In T.A. Seleok (Eds) Stylein Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
James, D. 1972. Some Aspects of the Syntax and Semantics of Interjections. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Jucker, A. H. 1993. The Discourse Marker well: a Relevance-Theoretical Account. Journal of Pragmatics, 5:435-452.
Jucker , A. H. & S. W. Smith. 1998. And People Just You Know Like“wow”: Discourse Markers as Negotiating Strategies. In : Jucker, A. H. & Y. Ziv (Eds) Discourse Markers : Description and Theory. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia : John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Knott, A.1996. A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Edingbrugh,UK.
Knott, A. & T. Sanders. 1998. The Classification of Coherence Relations and their Linguistic Markers. An Exploration of Two Languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30:135-175.
Kramsch, C. 2000. Language and Culture. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Labov, W. & D.Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse. New York: Academic Press.
Lakoff , R. 1973. Questionable Answers and Answerable Questions. In B.B. Kachru, R. B. Lee, Y. Malkiel, A.Pietrangeli &S. Saporta (Eds) Issues in Linguistics: 453-467. Chicago:University of Illinois Press.
Lakoff , R.1985. The Politics of Language. Paper presented at San Diego CATESOL meeting.
Leech, G. et al. 1982. English Grammar for Today. Hong Kong: The Macmillan Press Ltd. Leech, G. 2002.《语义学》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
Lenk,U.1998. Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Mariano, S. 2002. A Study of the Translation of Discourse Markers in Italian in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. available at http://www.docin.com/p-55525269.html
Mascheler, Y. 2002. The Role of Discourse Markers in the Construction of Multivocality in Israeli Hebrew Talk-in-Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35:1-38.
Matamala, A. 2007. The Translation of Oh in a Corpus of Dubbed Sitcoms. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6:117-136.
Morris, C. W. 1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap and C.
Morris (Eds) International Encyclopedia of Unified Science: 77-138. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Müller, S. 2004.‘Well You Know that Type of Person’: Functions of well in the Speech of American and German Students. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1157-1182.
Nedergaard-Larsen, B. 1993. Cultural Bound Problems in Subtitling. Perspectives, 2: 207-239.
Nida, E. A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nida, E. A. & C.R.Taber. 1969/2004. The Theory and Practice of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill; Shanghai :Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nord, C. 2001. Translating as A Purposeful Activity. Functional Approaches Explained. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Norrick, N.R. 2009. Interjections as Pragmatic Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41: 866-891.
Owen , M. 1981. Conversational Units and the Use of“Well…”. In Paul Werth (Eds) Conversation and Discourse: 99 - 116. London : Croom Helm.
Percht,K. 2003. Stance Moods in Spoken English: Evidentiality and Affect in British and American Conversation. Text, 23(2): 239-257.
Pomarantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds) Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis: 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Redeker, G. 1990. Ideational and Pragmatic Markers of Discourse Structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 367-381.
Redeker, G. 1991. Linguistic Markers of Discourse Structure. Linguistics, 29:1139-1172.
Reiss, K. 1989. Text Types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment. In C. Andrew(Eds). Readings in Translation Theory:105-115. Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.
Reiss, K. 2000. Translation Criticism. The Potentials and Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment .trans. Manchester, St.Jerome Publishing, 1971.
Richards, J. , J. Platt & H. Weber.1985. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman.
Romero-Trillo, J. 2006. Discourse Markers. In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics: 639-642. Oxford: Elsevier.
Romero-Trillo, J. 2007. Adaptive Management in Discourse: The Case of Involvement Discourse Markers in English and Spanish Conversations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6: 81-94
Rouchota, V. 1996. Discourse Connectives: What Do They Link? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, No. 8.
Sacks, H, & E.Schegloff & G. Jefferson. 1974 . A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation. Language, 50: 696-735. Sapir, E. 1970. Language. London: Hart-Davis.
Schiffrin, D. 1980. Meta-talk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse. In D. Zimmerman and C. West (Eds) Language and Social Interaction . Special Edition of Sociological Inquiry, 50: 199-236.
Schiffrin, D. 1987/2007. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Shanghai : Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Blackwell : Oxford University Press.
Schiffrin, D. 2001. Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context. In D. Schiffrin et al (Eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis: 54-75. Malden MA: Blackwell.
Shourup, L. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation: Like, Well, Y’know. New York: Garland.
Schourup, L. 1999. Discourse Markers. Lingua, 107: 230-234.
Schourup, L. 2001.“Rethinking well”. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1025-1060.
Shuttleworth, M. & M. Cowie. 1997. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St.Jerome Publishing.
Sinclair, J.M.& R.M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The EnglishUsed by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stenstr(?)m, A. 1984. Questions and Responses in English Conversation. Lund: Lund University Press.
Stenstr(?)m, A. 1987. Carry-on Signals in English Conversation. In W. Meijs (Eds) Corpus Linguistics and Beyond: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora: 87-119. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Stenstr(?)m, A. & G. Andersen.1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.
Stubbs.1983. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Tannen, D. 1986. Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narrative. In F. Coulmas (Eds) Direct and Indirect Speech: 311-332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices. New York: Cambridge.
Tannen, D. & R.Lakoff. 1994. Gender and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tree, J. E. & J.C. Schrock. 1999. Discourse Markers in Spontaneous Speech: Oh What a Difference an Oh Makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40:280-295.
Tshomba,L.–P. 1986. The Role of Interjections in Discourse. Estudios de Linguistica Aplicada ,6:42-64
van Dijk,T.A. 1977 . Text and Context. London: Longman Group Limited.
van Dijk,T.A. 1985. Semantic Discourse Analysis. In T.A.van Dijk (Eds) A Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 2: Dimensions of Discourse: 103-106. London: Academic Press. van Dijk,T.A. 1997. (Eds) Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies vol. 1: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: SAGE.
van Dijk ,T.A. 2000. Discourse as Interaction in Society, in T.A. Van Dijk (Eds). Discourse as Social Interaction: 1-37. London: Sage.
Vermeer H.J. 1989. Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. In A. Chestman (Eds) Readings in Translation Theory:174-186. Helsinki: Oy finn Lectura Ab.
Verschueren, J. 1995. The Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use. Journal ofPragmatics, 10(4):439-356.
Verschueren, J. 2000.Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Walaszeska, E. 2004.“What to Do with Response Cries in Relevance Theory?”In E. Mioduszewska(.Eds)Relevance Studies in Poland:119-129. Volume I. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.
Watts, R. J.1988. A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Commentary Pragmatic Markers: The Case of Actually, Really and Basically. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38(1-4): 235-60.
Watts, R. J. 1989. Taking the Pitcher to the Well: Native Speakers’Perception of their Use of Discourse Markers in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 13:203-237.
Wharton, T. 2003.“Interjection, Language, and the‘Showing/Saying’Continuum”. Pragmatics and Cognition, 11: 39-91.
Wierzbicka, A. 1992. The Semantics of Interjection. Journal of Pragmatics,18(2):159-192.
Wilkins, D.P. 1992. Interjections as Deictis, Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2): 119-158
Wilson, D.& D. Sperber. 1993. Linguistic Form and Relevance. Lingua, 90:1-25.
Wouk, H.著.英若诚译. 1999. The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
Ziv, Y.1998. Habrew Kaze as a Discourse Marker and Lexical Hedge. In A. H. Jucker & Y.
Ziv(Eds) Discourse Markers : Description and Theory. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia : John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Zwicky, M.A. 1985. Clitics and Particles. Language, 61: 283-305.
奥斯丁著.孙致礼译. 2007.《傲慢与偏见》.南京:译林出版社.
奥斯丁著.王科一译. 2006.《傲慢与偏见》.上海:译文出版社.
巴赫金著.白春仁、顾亚铃译. 1998.《巴赫金全集》第五卷.石家庄:河北教育出版社.
巴金原著.曹禺改编.英若诚译. 1999.《家》.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
柴梅萍. 2003.配音与字幕声画同步翻译的策略.《山东外语教学》, 5: 92-94.
陈琳. 2001.翻译中语篇指示语与语篇衔接重构.《外语与外语教学》, 7 : 14-16.
曹禺著.王佐良/巴恩斯译. 2003.《雷雨》.北京:外文出版社.
曹禺著.巴恩斯译. 2003.《日出》.外文出版社.
戴炜华主编. 2007.《新编英汉语言学词典》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
丹尼斯·马尔/维克多·马尔译.《聊斋志异选》. 2004.北京:外文出版社.
方梅. 2000.自然口语中弱化连词的话语标记功能.《中国语文》, 5 :459-470.
何善芬. 2002.《英汉语言对比研究》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
何自然. 2006.认知语用学.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
胡庚申. 2006.从译文看译论.《外语教学》, 7: 50-54.
胡开宝,邹颂兵. 2009.莎士比亚戏剧英汉平行语料库的创建与应用.《外语研究》, 5: 64-71.
胡显耀,曾佳. 2009.对翻译小说语法标记显化的语料库研究.《外语研究》, 5: 72-79.
黄国文,葛达西. 2006.《功能语篇分析》.上海外语教育出版社.
黄俊雄. 2008.《英译中国小小说选集(一)》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
黄勤,罗选民. 2008.《本族语者和非本族语者英语会话中的话语标记语》述评.《外语教学与研究》,9: 393-396.
柯飞. 2005.翻译中的隐和显.《外语教学与研究》, 4: 303-307.
《酷酷电影英语DVD》(5). 1999.上海:上海外语音像出版社.
李发根. 2004.《语言理论与翻译实践》.合肥:中国科学技术出版社.
李一平. 1992.论类语言成分叹词的交际作用.《汉语论丛》第二辑.郑州:河南大学出版社.
李勇忠. 2003.论话语标记在话语理解和生成中的作用.《四川外语学院外语》, 6:77-81.
李运兴. 2001.字幕翻译的策略.《中国翻译》,7:38-40.
老舍著.霍华译. 2003.《茶馆》.北京:外文出版社.
老舍著.英若诚译. 1999.《茶馆》.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
老舍著.施晓菁译. 2004.《骆驼祥子》.北京:外文出版社.
刘礼进. 2002.话语生成与理解—语序标记语作用.《外语教学与研究》, 3: 167-173.
刘全福. 1996.英汉叹词比较与翻译.《外国语》,4: 69-73.
刘泽权. 2010.英语小说汉译显化实证研究.《外语与外语教学》, 4: 8-13.
马会娟. 2001.当代西方翻译研究概况.《中国翻译》, 3: 61-65.
马萧. 2003.话语标记语的语用功能与翻译.《中国翻译》,5:36-39.
米勒著.英若诚译.《一个推销员之死》. 1999.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
米歇尔著.戴侃,李野光,庄绎传译. 2003.《飘》.北京:人民文学出版社.
米歇尔著.傅东华译. 2008.《飘》.杭州:浙江人民出版社.
梅美莲. 2006.汉英感叹词语用对比研究——以《雷雨》、《茶花女》双向翻译语料为中心.《浙江工业大学学报》2:21-25.
齐沪扬. 2002.“呢”的意义分析和历史演变.《上海师范大学学报》,1: 34-45.
冉永平. 2006.翻译中的信息空缺、语境补缺及语用充实.《外国语》,6:58-65.
邵敬敏. 2001.《现代汉语通论》.上海:上海教育出版社.
王虹. 2006.《戏剧文体分析—话语分析的方法》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王立非,祝卫华. 2005.中国学生英语口语中话语标记语的使用研究.《外语研究》,3: 40-44.
王瑞. 2008.莎剧中的话语标记及其翻译.《外语教学》, 5 : 85-88.
王文博. 2003.预设的认知研究.《外语教学与研究》,1: 34-39.
王永祥. 2010.语言与话语:两种语言哲学视角论略.《外语学刊》, 4: 21-25.
吴国良. 2005.话语标记词well用法译评.《中国翻译》,5:86-88
吴勇,郑树棠. 2007.论话语标记语语用功能在英译汉中的再现.《外语与外语教学》, 7: 45-50.
许家金. 2009,话语标记的现场即席观.《外语学刊》,2 :83-86
许余龙等. 2008.“语句”与“代词”的设定对指代消解的影响——一项向心理论
参数化实证研究.《现代外语》, 5: 111-120
许渊冲. 2006.《翻译的艺术》.北京:五洲传播出版社.
于根元. 2002.应用语言学的基本理论.《语言文字应用》,1:12-17.
于国栋,吴亚欣. 2003.语标记语的顺应性解释.《解放军外国语学院学报》,1:13-15.
张凌. 2006.省略对同声传译质量的影响.《中国翻译》, 4: 43-38.
张美芳. 2005.《翻译研究的功能途径》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
张美芳. 2009.文本类型理论及其对翻译研究的启示.《中国翻译》, 5: 53-60.
张友松译. 2002.《马克·吐温短篇小说选》.北京:人民文学出版社.
赵元任著.吕叔湘译. 1979.《汉语口语语法》.北京:商务印书馆.
朱永生. 2005.《语境的动态研究》.北京:北京大学出版社.
Aijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Aijmer, K. & A. Simon-Vandenbergen. 2003. The Discourse Particle well and its Equivalents in Swedish and Dutch . Linguistics , 41(6):1123-1161.
Aijmer, K., A. Foolen & A. Simon- Vandenbergen. 2006. Pragmatic Markers in Translation: A Methodological Proposal. In K. Fischer (Eds) Approaches to Discourse Particles : 101-114. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ameka,F. 1992. Interjections: the Universal yet Neglected Part of Speech. Journal of Pragmatics ,18(2/3): 245-272
Andersen, G. 1998. The Pragmatic Marker like from a Relevance-Theoretic Perspective. In Jucker, A.H. and Y. Ziv (Eds) Discourse Markers: Description and Theory: 147-170. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Aston, E. & G. Savona.1991. Theatre as Sign-System: A Semiotics of Text and Performance. London and New York: Routledge.
Baker, M. 1992. In Other words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Bakhtin,M. M. 1953. The Problem of Speech Genres. In P. Bizzell &B. Herzberg (Eds)The Rhetoric Tradition. Readings from Classic Times to the Present: 944-963. NY: Bedford Books.
Bakhtin,M.M. & V.N.Voloshinov. 1986.Marxism and the Philosophy of Language.Trans.Matejka,Ladislav&I.R.Ti-tunik.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bassnet, S. & A. Lefevere. 2005. Constructing Cultures: Essays in Literary Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Beaugrande, R. de & Dressler, W. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London and NewYork: Longman.
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford : Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford : Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blass, R. 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boxer, D. & A. Cohen. 2007. Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning.上海:世界图书出版公司.
Cao Xueqin & Gao E. 1994. A Dream of Red Mansions. Trans. Yang Hsien-yi & Gladys Yang. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
Cao Xueqin & Gao E. 1973.The Story of the Stone. Trans. David Hawkes & John Minford. New York: Penguin Group.
Carroll, L. 1988.赵元任译. Alice’s Adventures in the Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.北京:商务印书馆.
Cohen, R. 1984. A Computational Theory of the Function of Clue Words in Argument Understanding. In: Proceedings of the10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: 251-258. Stanford, CA, USA.
Coulthard, R. M.1985. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman. Cuenca, M.J. 2000. Defining the Indefinable? Interjections. Syntaxis, 3:29-44.
Cuenca, M.J. 2006. Interjections and Pragmatic Errors in Dubbing. Meta L1, 1: 20-35.
Douglas, D. 2007. Discourse Domains: the Cognitive Context of Speaking. In Boxer, D. & A. Cohen (Eds) Studying Speaking to Inform Second Language Learning.:25-35.上海:世界图书出版公司.
Edmondson, W. J. 1981. Spoken Discourse: A model for Analysis. London: Longman. Fischer, K. 2000. From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fleischman, S. Pragmatic Markers in Comparative Perspective: a Contribution to Cross-Language Pragmatics. Paper presented at PRAGMA 1999.
Fraser, B. 1988. Types of English Discourse Markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38:19-33.
Fraser, B. 1990. An Approach to Discourse Markers. Journal of Pragmatics,14:385-95.
Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 6: 167-190.
Fraser, B. 1999. What Are Discourse Markers(?) Journal of Pragmatics, 31:931-952.
Fung, L.& R. Carter. 2007. Discourse Markers and Spoken English: Native and Learner Use in Pedagogic Settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3): 410-429.
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gottlieb, H. 1994. Subtitling: Diagonal Translation. Perspectives, 1:158-164.
Grosz, B. J. & C. L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3):175-204.
Gumperz, J. J.1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herbert, H. C. & E. F. Schaefer. 1989. Contributing to Discourse. Cognitive Science, 13: 259-294.
Heritage, B. J. 1984. A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in
Conversation Analysis: 299-35. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2009. The Gloosy Ganoderm: Systemic Functional Linguistics and Translation.《中国翻译》,1:17-26.
Hismanoglu, M. 2010. Interjections in English: Neglected but Important Aspect of Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 6 (1):17-35.
H(?)lker, K.1991.Franzosisch Partikelforschung. Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, Vol. V. 1, 77-88.Tubingen: Niemeyer.
House, J. 2001. Politeness and Translation. in Leo Hickey(Eds) The Pragmatics of Translation. 61-65. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hussein, M. 2008. Two Accounts of DMs in English. Kashmir Journal of Language Research. available at: www.students.ncl.ac.uk.
Hymes, D. H. 1972. On Communicative Competence. In J. B. P ride & J. Holmes (Eds) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. In T.A. Seleok (Eds) Stylein Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
James, D. 1972. Some Aspects of the Syntax and Semantics of Interjections. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Jucker, A. H. 1993. The Discourse Marker well: a Relevance-Theoretical Account. Journal of Pragmatics, 5:435-452.
Jucker , A. H. & S. W. Smith. 1998. And People Just You Know Like“wow”: Discourse Markers as Negotiating Strategies. In : Jucker, A. H. & Y. Ziv (Eds) Discourse Markers : Description and Theory. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia : John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Knott, A.1996. A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Edingbrugh,UK.
Knott, A. & T. Sanders. 1998. The Classification of Coherence Relations and their Linguistic Markers. An Exploration of Two Languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30:135-175.
Kramsch, C. 2000. Language and Culture. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Labov, W. & D.Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse. New York: Academic Press.
Lakoff , R. 1973. Questionable Answers and Answerable Questions. In B.B. Kachru, R. B. Lee, Y. Malkiel, A.Pietrangeli &S. Saporta (Eds) Issues in Linguistics: 453-467. Chicago:University of Illinois Press.
Lakoff , R.1985. The Politics of Language. Paper presented at San Diego CATESOL meeting.
Leech, G. et al. 1982. English Grammar for Today. Hong Kong: The Macmillan Press Ltd. Leech, G. 2002.《语义学》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
Lenk,U.1998. Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Mariano, S. 2002. A Study of the Translation of Discourse Markers in Italian in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. available at http://www.docin.com/p-55525269.html
Mascheler, Y. 2002. The Role of Discourse Markers in the Construction of Multivocality in Israeli Hebrew Talk-in-Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35:1-38.
Matamala, A. 2007. The Translation of Oh in a Corpus of Dubbed Sitcoms. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6:117-136.
Morris, C. W. 1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap and C.
Morris (Eds) International Encyclopedia of Unified Science: 77-138. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Müller, S. 2004.‘Well You Know that Type of Person’: Functions of well in the Speech of American and German Students. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1157-1182.
Nedergaard-Larsen, B. 1993. Cultural Bound Problems in Subtitling. Perspectives, 2: 207-239.
Nida, E. A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nida, E. A. & C.R.Taber. 1969/2004. The Theory and Practice of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill; Shanghai :Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nord, C. 2001. Translating as A Purposeful Activity. Functional Approaches Explained. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Norrick, N.R. 2009. Interjections as Pragmatic Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41: 866-891.
Owen , M. 1981. Conversational Units and the Use of“Well…”. In Paul Werth (Eds) Conversation and Discourse: 99 - 116. London : Croom Helm.
Percht,K. 2003. Stance Moods in Spoken English: Evidentiality and Affect in British and American Conversation. Text, 23(2): 239-257.
Pomarantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds) Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis: 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Redeker, G. 1990. Ideational and Pragmatic Markers of Discourse Structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 367-381.
Redeker, G. 1991. Linguistic Markers of Discourse Structure. Linguistics, 29:1139-1172.
Reiss, K. 1989. Text Types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment. In C. Andrew(Eds). Readings in Translation Theory:105-115. Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.
Reiss, K. 2000. Translation Criticism. The Potentials and Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment .trans. Manchester, St.Jerome Publishing, 1971.
Richards, J. , J. Platt & H. Weber.1985. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman.
Romero-Trillo, J. 2006. Discourse Markers. In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics: 639-642. Oxford: Elsevier.
Romero-Trillo, J. 2007. Adaptive Management in Discourse: The Case of Involvement Discourse Markers in English and Spanish Conversations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6: 81-94
Rouchota, V. 1996. Discourse Connectives: What Do They Link? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, No. 8.
Sacks, H, & E.Schegloff & G. Jefferson. 1974 . A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation. Language, 50: 696-735. Sapir, E. 1970. Language. London: Hart-Davis.
Schiffrin, D. 1980. Meta-talk: Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse. In D. Zimmerman and C. West (Eds) Language and Social Interaction . Special Edition of Sociological Inquiry, 50: 199-236.
Schiffrin, D. 1987/2007. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Shanghai : Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Blackwell : Oxford University Press.
Schiffrin, D. 2001. Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context. In D. Schiffrin et al (Eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis: 54-75. Malden MA: Blackwell.
Shourup, L. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation: Like, Well, Y’know. New York: Garland.
Schourup, L. 1999. Discourse Markers. Lingua, 107: 230-234.
Schourup, L. 2001.“Rethinking well”. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1025-1060.
Shuttleworth, M. & M. Cowie. 1997. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St.Jerome Publishing.
Sinclair, J.M.& R.M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The EnglishUsed by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stenstr(?)m, A. 1984. Questions and Responses in English Conversation. Lund: Lund University Press.
Stenstr(?)m, A. 1987. Carry-on Signals in English Conversation. In W. Meijs (Eds) Corpus Linguistics and Beyond: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora: 87-119. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Stenstr(?)m, A. & G. Andersen.1994. An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.
Stubbs.1983. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Tannen, D. 1986. Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narrative. In F. Coulmas (Eds) Direct and Indirect Speech: 311-332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tannen, D. 1989. Talking Voices. New York: Cambridge.
Tannen, D. & R.Lakoff. 1994. Gender and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tree, J. E. & J.C. Schrock. 1999. Discourse Markers in Spontaneous Speech: Oh What a Difference an Oh Makes. Journal of Memory and Language, 40:280-295.
Tshomba,L.–P. 1986. The Role of Interjections in Discourse. Estudios de Linguistica Aplicada ,6:42-64
van Dijk,T.A. 1977 . Text and Context. London: Longman Group Limited.
van Dijk,T.A. 1985. Semantic Discourse Analysis. In T.A.van Dijk (Eds) A Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 2: Dimensions of Discourse: 103-106. London: Academic Press. van Dijk,T.A. 1997. (Eds) Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies vol. 1: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: SAGE.
van Dijk ,T.A. 2000. Discourse as Interaction in Society, in T.A. Van Dijk (Eds). Discourse as Social Interaction: 1-37. London: Sage.
Vermeer H.J. 1989. Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. In A. Chestman (Eds) Readings in Translation Theory:174-186. Helsinki: Oy finn Lectura Ab.
Verschueren, J. 1995. The Role of Metapragmatic Awareness in Language Use. Journal ofPragmatics, 10(4):439-356.
Verschueren, J. 2000.Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Walaszeska, E. 2004.“What to Do with Response Cries in Relevance Theory?”In E. Mioduszewska(.Eds)Relevance Studies in Poland:119-129. Volume I. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.
Watts, R. J.1988. A Relevance-Theoretic Approach to Commentary Pragmatic Markers: The Case of Actually, Really and Basically. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38(1-4): 235-60.
Watts, R. J. 1989. Taking the Pitcher to the Well: Native Speakers’Perception of their Use of Discourse Markers in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 13:203-237.
Wharton, T. 2003.“Interjection, Language, and the‘Showing/Saying’Continuum”. Pragmatics and Cognition, 11: 39-91.
Wierzbicka, A. 1992. The Semantics of Interjection. Journal of Pragmatics,18(2):159-192.
Wilkins, D.P. 1992. Interjections as Deictis, Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2): 119-158
Wilson, D.& D. Sperber. 1993. Linguistic Form and Relevance. Lingua, 90:1-25.
Wouk, H.著.英若诚译. 1999. The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
Ziv, Y.1998. Habrew Kaze as a Discourse Marker and Lexical Hedge. In A. H. Jucker & Y.
Ziv(Eds) Discourse Markers : Description and Theory. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia : John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Zwicky, M.A. 1985. Clitics and Particles. Language, 61: 283-305.
奥斯丁著.孙致礼译. 2007.《傲慢与偏见》.南京:译林出版社.
奥斯丁著.王科一译. 2006.《傲慢与偏见》.上海:译文出版社.
巴赫金著.白春仁、顾亚铃译. 1998.《巴赫金全集》第五卷.石家庄:河北教育出版社.
巴金原著.曹禺改编.英若诚译. 1999.《家》.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
柴梅萍. 2003.配音与字幕声画同步翻译的策略.《山东外语教学》, 5: 92-94.
陈琳. 2001.翻译中语篇指示语与语篇衔接重构.《外语与外语教学》, 7 : 14-16.
曹禺著.王佐良/巴恩斯译. 2003.《雷雨》.北京:外文出版社.
曹禺著.巴恩斯译. 2003.《日出》.外文出版社.
戴炜华主编. 2007.《新编英汉语言学词典》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
丹尼斯·马尔/维克多·马尔译.《聊斋志异选》. 2004.北京:外文出版社.
方梅. 2000.自然口语中弱化连词的话语标记功能.《中国语文》, 5 :459-470.
何善芬. 2002.《英汉语言对比研究》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
何自然. 2006.认知语用学.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
胡庚申. 2006.从译文看译论.《外语教学》, 7: 50-54.
胡开宝,邹颂兵. 2009.莎士比亚戏剧英汉平行语料库的创建与应用.《外语研究》, 5: 64-71.
胡显耀,曾佳. 2009.对翻译小说语法标记显化的语料库研究.《外语研究》, 5: 72-79.
黄国文,葛达西. 2006.《功能语篇分析》.上海外语教育出版社.
黄俊雄. 2008.《英译中国小小说选集(一)》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
黄勤,罗选民. 2008.《本族语者和非本族语者英语会话中的话语标记语》述评.《外语教学与研究》,9: 393-396.
柯飞. 2005.翻译中的隐和显.《外语教学与研究》, 4: 303-307.
《酷酷电影英语DVD》(5). 1999.上海:上海外语音像出版社.
李发根. 2004.《语言理论与翻译实践》.合肥:中国科学技术出版社.
李一平. 1992.论类语言成分叹词的交际作用.《汉语论丛》第二辑.郑州:河南大学出版社.
李勇忠. 2003.论话语标记在话语理解和生成中的作用.《四川外语学院外语》, 6:77-81.
李运兴. 2001.字幕翻译的策略.《中国翻译》,7:38-40.
老舍著.霍华译. 2003.《茶馆》.北京:外文出版社.
老舍著.英若诚译. 1999.《茶馆》.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
老舍著.施晓菁译. 2004.《骆驼祥子》.北京:外文出版社.
刘礼进. 2002.话语生成与理解—语序标记语作用.《外语教学与研究》, 3: 167-173.
刘全福. 1996.英汉叹词比较与翻译.《外国语》,4: 69-73.
刘泽权. 2010.英语小说汉译显化实证研究.《外语与外语教学》, 4: 8-13.
马会娟. 2001.当代西方翻译研究概况.《中国翻译》, 3: 61-65.
马萧. 2003.话语标记语的语用功能与翻译.《中国翻译》,5:36-39.
米勒著.英若诚译.《一个推销员之死》. 1999.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司.
米歇尔著.戴侃,李野光,庄绎传译. 2003.《飘》.北京:人民文学出版社.
米歇尔著.傅东华译. 2008.《飘》.杭州:浙江人民出版社.
梅美莲. 2006.汉英感叹词语用对比研究——以《雷雨》、《茶花女》双向翻译语料为中心.《浙江工业大学学报》2:21-25.
齐沪扬. 2002.“呢”的意义分析和历史演变.《上海师范大学学报》,1: 34-45.
冉永平. 2006.翻译中的信息空缺、语境补缺及语用充实.《外国语》,6:58-65.
邵敬敏. 2001.《现代汉语通论》.上海:上海教育出版社.
王虹. 2006.《戏剧文体分析—话语分析的方法》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
王立非,祝卫华. 2005.中国学生英语口语中话语标记语的使用研究.《外语研究》,3: 40-44.
王瑞. 2008.莎剧中的话语标记及其翻译.《外语教学》, 5 : 85-88.
王文博. 2003.预设的认知研究.《外语教学与研究》,1: 34-39.
王永祥. 2010.语言与话语:两种语言哲学视角论略.《外语学刊》, 4: 21-25.
吴国良. 2005.话语标记词well用法译评.《中国翻译》,5:86-88
吴勇,郑树棠. 2007.论话语标记语语用功能在英译汉中的再现.《外语与外语教学》, 7: 45-50.
许家金. 2009,话语标记的现场即席观.《外语学刊》,2 :83-86
许余龙等. 2008.“语句”与“代词”的设定对指代消解的影响——一项向心理论
参数化实证研究.《现代外语》, 5: 111-120
许渊冲. 2006.《翻译的艺术》.北京:五洲传播出版社.
于根元. 2002.应用语言学的基本理论.《语言文字应用》,1:12-17.
于国栋,吴亚欣. 2003.语标记语的顺应性解释.《解放军外国语学院学报》,1:13-15.
张凌. 2006.省略对同声传译质量的影响.《中国翻译》, 4: 43-38.
张美芳. 2005.《翻译研究的功能途径》.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
张美芳. 2009.文本类型理论及其对翻译研究的启示.《中国翻译》, 5: 53-60.
张友松译. 2002.《马克·吐温短篇小说选》.北京:人民文学出版社.
赵元任著.吕叔湘译. 1979.《汉语口语语法》.北京:商务印书馆.
朱永生. 2005.《语境的动态研究》.北京:北京大学出版社.