|
The pragmatic dimension of language in Kussmaul’s approach Pragmatics, for Kussmaul, is the study of the relationships between utterance or text and its users, within a social and cultural context (p. 56). In this pragmatic dimension, there are three sub-divisions: a situational sub-dimension, a communicative function sub-dimension and a cultural sub-dimension. During the reading process, the top-down and bottom-up
processes are said to combine with each of the sub-dimensions above.
The situational sub-dimension:
The situational sub-dimension, as it has been just mentioned, is based on the idea that non-linguistic situational factors are reflected in linguistic forms. These situational factors, according to Kussmaul, relate to the dimension of the language user (geographical origin, social class, time) and to the dimension of language use (medium, social role relationship, social attitude, province…). These are the two aspects of ‘register analysis’.
Kussmaul cites the example of an utterance extracted from a passage to illustrate the significant role of the psycholinguistic reading processes in their relation to this sub-dimension. The utterance is “you bloody fool!”
For Kussmaul, this utterance used in a particular context
can be regarded as the bottom-up linguistic material, and the mental image of a situation such utterances evoke can be regarded as the top-down process… The experience which the speaker / hearer has of this phrase as
a result of having encountered it previously in a range of different situations provides the top-down backcloth. (1995: 60)
The communicative function sub- dimension:
Here the reader or listener, according to Kussmaul, has to infer the writer’s or speaker’s intention from the illocutionary meaning of words and from the context in which the words are uttered. The words and the context constitute the bottom-up process and the text function constitutes the top-down process. For Kussmaul, the text function is the most important frame of reference:
In text analysis, there is a hierarchy of steps or aspects; function is of the highest order. Once we have decided on the function, all other considerations fall into place, as it were. (1995: 63)
This view is endorsed by Hatim and Mason (1990) and (1997) since the reader’s interpretation and the translator’s decisions are to a great extent informed by text function. But to return to Kussmaul’s model, he further states:
The main thing asked of a translation is that it should fulfil the function chosen for it in the best possible way. All details concerning the translation of individual words ought to be subordinated to this end (Ibid: 103)
Concerning the function of a translation, Kussmaul refers to Reiss and Vermeer’s (1984) stance on this point and thus concludes that the function of the translation is dictated by “considerations of the target readers’ needs, interest, etc.” Reiss and Vermeer (1984) have in fact boldly put forward the idea that a ST is nothing but an offer of information “Informationsangebot”, and that it is up to the translator to select from it whatever will fulfil the needs and expectations of the target culture readers.
The cultural sub-dimension:
As previously mentioned, language users according to Kussmaul operate within a socio-cultural context. In addition to the social situation dimension examined above, the cultural background of a language is also said to be decisive in the appreciation of the meanings exchanged via words, phrases, utterances or passages. A word such as “dragon”, for example, is perceived in Chinese culture as symbolizing “good luck”, whereas it is perceived in a western culture as symbolizing “evil”. Various methods for translating cultural meaning have been suggested. These
include explaining, adapting, replacing or simply dropping the cultural reference. Nida, for example, adopts the replacement procedure which consists in substituting the source text culture specific concepts by target culture concepts in order to produce a translation which is dynamically equivalent (Ex: daily bread daily fish).
To sum up, Kussmaul draws attention to the importance of the cultural sub-dimension in informing the translator’s decisions. With this regard, he states:
We have to take text function and target culture into consideration. If we do not, our translation will not make sense and we may even run the danger of being misunderstood. (Ibid: 67)
When the psycholinguistic model of comprehension is added to the cultural sub-dimension, following Kussmaul’s model, the words will then form the bottom-up process whereas the cultural meaning will form the top-down process.
Concerning Nida’s concept of dynamic equivalence in which replacement is used as a procedure, Kussmaul makes an interesting link between this concept and the linguistic model of scenes and frames by Fillmore:
Nida did not use the concept of scenes and frames which was developed much later. It could be applied here. One may say that although the linguistic frames are changed in the translation (“bread” becomes “fish”…) both “bread” and “fish” evoke the scene of “basic type of food”. Nida’s concept of dynamic equivalence may be defined within the scenes and frames model as difference of frames but similarity of scenes. (Ibid: 67)
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
