[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.The difference makes itself felt in the greater markedness ofthe topicalized element in English.Transformations structural changes turning basic syntactic structures intoderived structures, mostly by moving elements to other positions (seealso Topicalization, Scrambling, Postponing).Translation studies, translation theory discipline focusing on translationand translating, often including interpreting.Compared to genetics,computer linguistics, biochemistry and other more recent disciplines,translation studies is quite of age now, but much less accepted inacademic circles.For most of the time, theories on translation havefocused on literary translation, including bible translation, wherelinguistic aspects of translation are heavily dominated by aesthetic andcultural aspects.Thus, although translation studies has largely followedthe developments in linguistics, starting with a transformationalapproach (Nida, Catford), via a communicative approach (for exampleKade, Neubert, Reiß and Vermeer) towards a cognitive, psycholinguisticapproach (Gutt), linguistic issues have been increasingly neglected orexplicitly rejected as genuine topics of translation studies.The majortendency today places translation studies among cultural studies andlooks for the special norms controlling translations or even influencingthe target language/target culture through translations (see for exampleToury, Snell-Hornby).Yet whatever the merits of the cross-culturalapproach may be or will be in the future, there are vast areas oftranslational problems, including those of machine translation (as speltout in Kay et al.1994), that cannot be tackled, theoretically or prac-tically, without recourse to linguistics  as the Key amply demonstrates.Notes1 Setting the scene1 A high degree of equivalence will thus come very close to the concept of  optimalequivalence as defined  and strikingly illustrated  in Toury 1983: 117.2 This contrasts with Baker 1992, who discusses many of the aspects to be taken upin the Key and often in a similar vein, but who says:  It is in fact virtuallyimpossible.to draw a line between what counts as a good translation and whatcounts as a bad one.House 1997, on the other hand, vigorously advocates thepossibility of quality assessments, albeit in a much wider sense of the convention-alized properties of source and target texts.3 Comprising all the aspects spelled out in Speech Act Theory; cf.Searle 1969.2 Questions of order1 Whether they are of the more traditional type, like Rochemont and Culicover1990, or of the strictly generative type like Rosengren 1993; whether they take given as the basic semantic concept, like Schwarzschild 1999, or  new , like theabove and, in fact, most linguists.There are, however, not a few linguists, likeLambrecht 1994, or Vallduví and Engdahl 1996, who warn against a simpleidentification of focus and new.2 Compare Selkirk 1984, for a standard approach.3 Abraham 1992 presents this idea in a unified generative account, extending itonto non-verbal categories.4 Bierwisch 1963 was the first to make this assumption.5 An aside for the observant reader: the analogous order of the objects in theexamples above is not representative of the alternative directionality and hasmade many theoretical linguists miss the basic difference in the direction of thestructural extensions which is so manifest in the more complex translational data.If one compares predicates, obligatory and free adverbials, the parallel direction-ality of the objects has to be seen as the exception  very much like otherirregularities found with frequently used elements.The particular role of thecomplementary prepositional objects, pointed out by Collins 1995, is an addi-tional argument in favour of the alternative-direction hypothesis.6 See Lambrecht 1994, for a renowned expert on information structure, whosupports this idea, too.7 Applying half a dozen syntactic and semantic tests, Frey and Pittner 1999 distin-guish five classes of adverbials linearized alternatively in English and German.For a corpus-linguistic study of English adverbials in Swedish translations on thebasis of Quirk et al. s comprehensive subclassification from 1985, which illustratesthe right-directional trend of English adverbials extensively, cf.Lindquist 1989.180Notes 1818 For a detailed account of the interaction between syntax and the lexicon, the lexical projection , see Bierwisch, for example, 1996.3 Complex sentences1 Except for some sporadic comments, as in Rosengren 1993, and some cases ofsyntactic focus structures as for example, cleft-sentences, which we will turn to inChapter 6.2 Chafe 1987 distinguishes between active, semi-active and inactive information,which would allow us to classify role division as inactive, translation mechanismas semi-active.3 Büring, for example, 1998, speaks of a  partitive topic in a case like this, whichwe may expect to be quite frequent considering the processing advantage of focusspacing.4 It may be interesting to note that the clausal version meets the Principle of End-Weight, although in a wider sense than traditionally seen.Hawkins 1991 2considers it to be one of the basic principles of linearization, but this is ageneralization which has to be relativized by a wide range of restructuringpatterns, like the one illustrated above.4 In favour of primary relations1 Cf.Altmann 1989, or Tanenhaus 1988, for concise surveys of psycholinguisticresearch in the last decades.2 In fact, the difference has been measured by neurophysiologists (as A.Friederici1998: 180), who say that we may discover a grave syntactic error up to 200 msecfaster than a lexical-semantic error.Compare also Crocker 1996 for acomputational model on incremental processing.3 See Frazier 1988, 1999, or Frazier and Clifton 1996, on the garden path theory.4 We have already encountered the effect in topicalization and scrambling; ingeneral, this is a well-known phenomenon in focus theories; see for exampleStechow and Uhmann 1986.5 For the impact of morphological case on processing, compare for example Bader1998.6 See Doherty 1996, which reports on a two-year research project on this topic.7 Hawkins 1986 suggests that this is one of the many cases of a general differencebetween English and German, where the nature of the relation between syntaxand semantics is more homomorphous in German than in English.8 See Tanenhaus et al.1989.9 Halliday 1985 speaks of a grammatical metaphor in such cases.5 Structural weight1 For a systematic presentation of the various factors involved in the resolution ofanaphoric ambiguities, cf.for example Preuss et al.1994; for a general theory ofreferential movement in discourse Klein and Stutterheim 1991.2 Fabricius-Hansen 1999 formulates this as a principle constraining the intro-duction of new referents and new conditions in a text.3 A major example in the German forerunner to the Key; cf.also Doherty 1999c,for an English presentation.4 Defining relative clauses are likely to be relatively autonomous information units,which may promote contextual integration right away [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]