Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- 13 Face, Facework and Face-Threatening Acts
- 14 Relationships and Relating
- 15 Analysing Identity
- 16 (Im)politeness and Sociopragmatics
- 17 Affect and Emotion
- 18 Power
- 19 Morality in Sociopragmatics
- 20 Conversational Humour
- 21 Gesture and Prosody in Multimodal Communication
- 22 Digitally Mediated Communication
- 23 Workplace and Institutional Discourse
- 24 Service Encounter Discourse
- 25 Argumentative, Political and Legal Discourse
- 26 The Pragmatics of Translation
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- Index
- References
26 - The Pragmatics of Translation
from Part II - Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- 13 Face, Facework and Face-Threatening Acts
- 14 Relationships and Relating
- 15 Analysing Identity
- 16 (Im)politeness and Sociopragmatics
- 17 Affect and Emotion
- 18 Power
- 19 Morality in Sociopragmatics
- 20 Conversational Humour
- 21 Gesture and Prosody in Multimodal Communication
- 22 Digitally Mediated Communication
- 23 Workplace and Institutional Discourse
- 24 Service Encounter Discourse
- 25 Argumentative, Political and Legal Discourse
- 26 The Pragmatics of Translation
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- Index
- References
Summary
This article highlights translation as re-contextualization and emphasizes the role of context in translation. The importance of context for both translation and pragmatics is evidence of the close relation between translation and pragmatics. Initially, different classic views of context are briefly discussed. Secondly, linguistic approaches to translation are reviewed, and key concepts are defined. The author’s own theory of translation as re-contextualization is then discussed. Two fundamental, empirically derived translation types as qualitatively different ways of re-contextualization are proposed:overt and covert translation. The concept of a ‘cultural filter’ employed in covert translation is described, and examples are given. In conclusion, the current dominant role of English as a lingua franca and its influence on translation are discussed.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 544 - 566Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. and Dressler, W. (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becher, V., House, J. and Kranich, S. (2009). Convergence and divergence of communicative norms through language norms in translation. In K. Braunmüller, and J. House, , eds., Convergence and Divergence in Language Contact Situations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–52.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena, Gemany: Fischer.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 214–74.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K. (1984). Zum Textbegriff. In A. Rothkegel, and B. Sandig, , eds., Text-Textsorten Semantik. Hamburg, Germany: Buske, pp. 9–25.Google Scholar
Federov, A. (1958). Introduction to the Theory of Translation. 2d ed. (in Russian). Moscow: Isdatel’stvo literartury na inostrannikh yazykakh.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, and J. Morgan, , eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1992). Contextualisation and understanding. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–52.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1989). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halverson, S. (2014). Reorienting translation studies: Cognitive approaches and the centrality of the translator. In J. House, , ed., Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 116–39.Google Scholar
House, J. (1977). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7, 556–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (2006). Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies, 10, 249–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. (2010). Discourse and dominance: Global English, language contact and language change. In A. Duszak, , J. House, and L. Kumiega, , eds., Globalization, Discourse, Media. Warsaw: University of Warsaw Press, pp. 61–94.Google Scholar
House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
House, J. (2016a). Translation as Communication across Language and Cultures. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
House, J. (2016b). Towards a new linguistic-cognitive orientation in translation studies. In M. Ehrensberger-Dow, S. Göpferich, and O’Brien, S., eds., Interdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–63.Google Scholar
House, J. (2017). Global English, discourse and translation: Linking constructions in English and German popular science texts. In Munday, J. and Zhang, M., eds., Discourse Analysis in Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In Brower, R., ed., On Translation. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 232–9.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T., ed., Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 350–77.Google Scholar
Kranich, S., House, J. and Becher, V. (2012). Changing conventions in English and German translations of popular science texts. In Braunmüller, K. and Gabriel, C., eds., Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 315–35.Google Scholar
Kruger, A., Wallmach, K. and Mundy, J. (2011). Corpus-Based Translation Studies: Research and Applications. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reiss, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Munich, Germany: Hueber.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, F. (1813). Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens. Reprinted in Störig, H.-J., eds., Das Problem des Übersetzens. Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 38–70.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In Cole, P., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press, pp. 315–22.Google Scholar
Steiner, E. (2004). Exploring Texts: Properties, Variants, Evaluations. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Zanettin, F. (2014). Corpora in translation. In House, J., ed., Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 178–99.Google Scholar