A Critical Evaluation of Widespread Beliefs in Explicitation Studies from the Perspective of Social Cognitive Linguistics: A Step in the Direction of Reconceptualizing Explicitation in Translation

Daneshzadeh, Soheil; Karimi-Doostan, Gholam-Hossein

doi:10.30473/il.2022.57338.1437

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

¹ Ph.D. in Linguistics, University of Tehran, Iran

² Professor of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30473/il.2022.57338.1437

Abstract

In this research we critically evaluate two fundamental beliefs in explicitation studies. Our point of departure will be social cognitive linguisticss. These beliefs are as follows: 1) Degrees of explicitness are determined on the basis of linguistic forms. 2) Explicitation is by definition specification. Through evaluating the first beliefs, we argue that degrees of explicitness cannot always be attributed to linguistic forms and other variables such as shared encyclopedic knowledge and contexts should be taken into account. Through evaluating the second beliefs we apply secondary analysis to four examples which have been taken form two previous researches, and demonstrate that it is not the process of specification that has caused explicitation in those cases and consequently explicitation cannot be reduced to this one construal operation. So these beliefs not only are unreliable, but also-being widespread- they have almost made it impossible for researchers to search for and sufficiently explain many potential instances of explicitation. In light of these findings we propose that explicitation researchers should take into account the socio-cognitive motivations for this type of translational shift, and explicitation and explicitation mechanisms should be defined in terms of various conceptualization processes that take place in the process of explicitation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Language Contact and Conflict

References

Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In K. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 7-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Becher, V. (2010). Abandoning the notion of ‘translation-inherent’ explicitation. Against a 6-dogma of translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures, 11(1), 1–28.

Becher, V. (2011). Explicitation and implicitation in translation. A corpus-based study of English-German and German-English translations of business texts. Doctoral dissertation, Hamburg.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication (pp. 17-35). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans and S. Pourcel (eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 395-420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Croft, W. & Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dabirmoghaddam, M., Yousefi Rad, F., Shaghaghi, V. & Motesharrei, S. M. (2018). Cognitive sociolinguistics: Introducing a new approach to meaning and linguistic variations. Iranian Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2(2), 20-29.

Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4), 463–489.

Divjak, D.S. & Levshina, N. & Klavan, J. (2016). Cognitive linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 447-463.

Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In the linguistic society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.

Geeraerts, D. (2008). Prototypes, stereotypes, and semantic norms. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 21-44). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ghesquiere, L., Brems, L. & Van de Velde, F. (2014). Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification: Typology and operationalization. In L. Brems, L. Ghesquière & F. Van de Velde (eds.), Intersubjectivity and intersubjectification in grammar and discourse (pp. 129-154). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Hakim, C. (1982). Secondary analysis in social research: A guide to data sources and method examples. London: George Allen & Uwin.

Heltai, P. (2005). Explicitation, redundancy, ellipsis and translation. In K. Károly & A. Fóris (eds.), New trends in translation studies. In honour of Kinga Klaudy (pp. 45–74). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Hoffner, C. A. (2020). Same gender characters: Appeal and identification. In J. Bulk (ed.), The international encyclopedia of media psychology. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0269.

Hollmann, W. B. (2013). Constructions in cognitive sociolinguistics. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 491-511). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

House, J. (2004). Explicitness in discourse across languages. In J. House, W. Koller & K. Schubert (eds.), Neue Perspektiven in der Übersetzungs - und Dolmetschwissenschaft (pp. 185–208). Bochum: AKS.

Jose, P. E. (1989). The role of gender and gender role similarity in readers` identification with story characters. Sex Roles, 21, 697-713.

Klaudy, K. & Károly, K. (2005). Implicitation in translation: Empirical evidence for operational asymmetry in translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 6(1), 13-28.

Klaudy, K. (2008). Explicitation. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 104-108). London: Routledge.

Klaudy, K. (2009). The asymmetry hypothesis in translation research. In R. Dimitriu & M. Shlesinger (eds.), Translators and their readers. In Homage to Eugene A. Nida (pp. 283–303). Brussels: Les Editions du Hazard.

Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R. (2008). Introduction: Cognitive Linguistics: Rationale, Methods and Scope. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems (pp. 1-20). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kruger, R. (2014). Exploting the Interface Between Scientific and Technical Translation and Cognitive Linguistic: The Case of Explicitation and Implicitation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Salford.

Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R. (2008). Introduction: Cognitive linguistics: Rationale, methods and scope. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 1-20). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kruger, R. (2014). Exploting the interface between scientific and technical translation and cognitive linguistic: The case of explicitation and emplicitation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Salford.

Langacker, R. (2000). Grammer and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammer: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Motesharrei, S.M. & Yousefi Rad, F. (2020). A cognitive sociolinguistic approach to lexical polysemy, a case study: Persian adjective /topol/. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects, 11(2), 181-201.

Motesharrei, S.M. & Yousefi Rad, F. (2020). A cognitive sociolinguistic approach to lexical Polysemy: A Case Study of Persian Word /jigar/. Iranian Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(1), 59-74.

Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther& G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rasekh Mahand, M. (2010). An introduction to cognitive linguistics: Theories and concepts. Tehran: The organization for researching and composing University Textbooks in the Humanities (SAMT).

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.

Tantucci, V. & Di Cristofaro, M. (2020). Pre-emptive interaction in language change and ontogeny: The case of [there is no NP]. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (). https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2020-0007.

Vinay, J.P. & Darbelnet, J. (1958/1995). A comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation. (J.C. Sager & M.J. Hamel Trans.), Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wolf, H. & Polzenhagen, F. (2009). World Englishes: A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Yarmohammadi, L. (2004). Mainstream and critical discourse. Tehran: Hermes.

Yousefi Rad, F., Motesharrei, S. M. & Dabir Moghadam, M. (2019). A cognitive sociolinguistic approach to lexical polysemy, a case study: Persian adjective /Sax/. Intl. J. Humanities, 26(2), 70-76.

Yousefi Rad, F., Motesharrei, S.M. & Dabir Moghadam, M. (2019). A cognitive sociolinguistic Approach to lexical polysemy, A case study: Persian adjective /Sax/. Intl. J. Humanities, 26(2), 70-76.

Zandi, B. & Ahmadi, B. (2017). Cognitive socio-onomastics: A new domain interdisciplinary studies. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 9(1), 99-122.

A Critical Evaluation of Widespread Beliefs in Explicitation Studies from the Perspective of Social Cognitive Linguistics: A Step in the Direction of Reconceptualizing Explicitation in Translation

References

References

Volume 4, Issue 3 - Serial Number 15July 2022Pages 35-51

Volume 4, Issue 3 - Serial Number 15
July 2022
Pages 35-51