Cover not available
Article published In:
New Developments in Relevance Theory
Edited by Manuel Padilla Cruz and Agnieszka Piskorska
[Pragmatics & Cognition 28:2] 2021
► pp. 347–375

Onomatopoeia, translation and relevance

 | Dublin City University
It is generally acknowledged that onomatopoeia poses challenges for translation. However, there is little research into the translation of onomatopoeia in Pragmatics. This study seeks to examine the nature of onomatopoeia and its implications for translation from the perspective of relevance theory, addressing, in particular, the following questions: (i) Can notions from pragmatics help to account for the perceived challenges involved in translating onomatopoeia? (ii) Would the showing-meaning nature affect the translation of onomatopoeia? (iii) What other factors result in difficulties in translating onomatopoeia and why? To this end, a corpus-based analysis of onomatopoeia was conducted using user-generated data provided by Cookpad Inc. Findings show that the relevance-theoretic notions of the showing-meaning continuum and perceptual resemblance can indeed help account for the perceived challenges in translating onomatopoeia. Findings also show that stylistic aspects, such as types of expressions and text types, also impact on the translation of onomatopoeia.
Keywords: onomatopoeia, showing-meaning continuum, perceptual resemblance, translation, relevance, food discourse
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Onomatopoeia and translation
  • 3.Onomatopoeia and relevance
  • 4.Corpus analysis of onomatopoeia
    • 4.1Methodology
      • 4.1.1Data
      • 4.1.2Corpus analysis
      • 4.1.3Analytical framework
        • a.Omission and the showing–meaning continuum
        • b.Reasons for omissions
        • c.Omission and expression type
        • d.Omission and text type
  • 5.Findings
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Omission and the showing–meaning continuum
    • 6.2Omission and expression type
    • 6.3Omission and text type
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21011.sas
References (57)
References
Akita, Kimi & Mark Dingemanse. 2019. Ideophones (mimetics, expressives). In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics 23 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alves, Fabio. 2006. A relevance-theoretic approach to effort and effect in translation: Discussing the cognitive interface between inferential processing, problem-solving and decision-making. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on New Horizons in Theoretical Translation Studies. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press, 1–12.Google Scholar
Alves, Fabio. & Jóse Luiz V. R. Gonçalves. 2003. A relevance theory approach to the investigation of inferential processes in translation. In Fabio Alves (ed.), Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, 3–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Benjamins Translation Library 45). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Modelling translator’s competence. Relevance and expertise under scrutiny. In Y. Gambier, Miriam Shlesinger & Radegundis Stolze (eds.), Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, 14–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Relevance and translation. In Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer (eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies, Volume 11, 279–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Investigating the conceptual-procedural distinction in the translation process. A relevance-theoretic analysis of micro and macro translation units. In Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Susanne Göpferich & Sharon O’Brien (eds.), Interdisciplinarity in Translation and Interpreting Process Research, 109–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1992. In other words: a coursebook on translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 221. 577–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartashova, Olga A. & Anton E. Sichinskiy. 2014. Japanese–English Onomatopoeic and Mimetic Parallels: The Problem of Translatability. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 21. 222–229.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane & Fabrizio Gallai. 2014. Discourse markers in free indirect style and interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 601: 106–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bogucki, L. 2004. The constraint of relevance in subtitling. Journal of Specialised Translation 11: 71–88.Google Scholar
2009a. Pragmatic considerations in translating films. In Piotr Cap (ed.), Pragmatics Today, 255–262. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2009b. Amateur subtitling on the Internet. In Jóse Díaz-Cintas and Gunilla Anderman (eds.), Audiovisual Translation: Language Transfer on Screen, 49–57. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. A relevance-theoretic approach to decision-making in subtitling. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The importance of being relevant? A cognitive-pragmatic framework for conceptualising audiovisual translation. In Yves Gambier and Sara Ramos Pinto (eds.), Audiovisual Translation. Theoretical and Methodological Challenges, 121–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2018. Figurative language, mental imagery, and pragmatics. Metaphor and Symbol 33 (3). 198–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casas-Tost, Helena. 2014. Translating onomatopoeia from Chinese into Spanish: A corpus-based analysis. Perspectives 22 (1). 39–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edström, Bert. 1989. Japanese onomatopoetic words: A research note. Orientaliska Studier 651. 35–52.Google Scholar
Flyxe, Martin. 2002. Translation of Japanese onomatopoeia into Swedish (with focus on lexicalization). Africa & Asia 21. 54–73.Google Scholar
Gallai, Fabrizio. 2016. Point of view in free indirect thought and in community interpreting. Lingua 175–1761: 97–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Cognitive pragmatics and translation studies. In Rebecca Tipton & Louisa Desilla (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Pragmatics, 51–72. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1991. Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2005. On the significance of the cognitive core of translation. The Translator 11(1): 25–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Approaches to translation: relevance theory. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Relevance and translation: On the value of a good theoretical foundation of translation. In Ewa Wałaszewska, Marta Kisielewska-Krysiuk, & Agnieszka Piskorska (eds.), In the mind and across minds: A relevance-theoretical perspective on communication and translation, 292–310. New Castle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Hayase, Mitsuaki. 1978. Characteristics of Japanese onomatopoeia observed through the English translation. Kanssai Gaikokugodaigaku Kenkyu Ronshu 281. 117–127.Google Scholar
Imai, Mutsumi, Sotaro Kita, Miho Nagumo & Hiroyuki Okada. 2008. Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition 109 (1). 54–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inose, Hiroko. 2008. Translating Japanese onomatopoeia and mimetic words. In Anthony Pym and Alexander Perekrestenko (eds.), Translation research projects 1 1. 97–116. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.Google Scholar
Kantartzis, Katerina, Mutsumi Imai & Sotaro Kita. 2011. Japanese sound-symbolism facilitates word learning in English-speaking children. Cognitive Science 35 (3). 575–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kubo, Atsuko. 1995. Miyazawa Kenji no Onomatope no Sekai [The world of onomatopoeia in Miyazawa Kenji’s Work]. Kobe Kaisei Review 341. 17–30.Google Scholar
Laing, Catherine E. 2014. A phonological analysis of onomatopoeia in early word production. First Language 34 (5). 387–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. A perceptual advantage for onomatopoeia in early word learning: evidence from eye-tracking. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 1611. 32–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laing, Catherine. 2018. A role for onomatopoeia in early language: Evidence from phonological development. Language and Cognition 11 (2). 173–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laing, Catherine E. 2019. Phonological motivation for the acquisition of onomatopoeia: An analysis of early words. Language Learning and Development 15 (2). 177–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinard, Maruszka Eve Marie. 2015. Distinguishing onomatopoeias from interjections. Journal of Pragmatics 761. 150–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merriam Webster Dictionary [URL]
Minashima, Hiroshi. 2004. Nihhongo no onomatope [Onomatopoeia in Japanese]. Fukui Daigaku Kyoiku Chiiki Kagakubu Kiyou 601. 97–115.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1991. About translation. Vol. 741. Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
. 1988. A textbook of translation. London: Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Nygaard, Lynne C., Allison E. Cook & Laura L. Namy. 2009. Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition 112 (1). 181–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2019. Qualifying insults, offensive epithets, slurs and expressive expletives. A relevance-theoretic approach. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 7(2). 156–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohan, Olivia, Ryoko Sasamoto, & Rebecca Jackson. 2018. Argumentation, relevance theory and persuasion. An analysis of onomatopoeia in Japanese publications using manga stylistics. International Review of Pragmatics, 101: 219–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasamoto, Ryoko. 2019. Onomatopoeia and relevance. Communication of impressions via sound. London: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasamoto, Ryoko & Rebecca Jackson. 2016. Onomatopoeia – showing-word or saying-word? Relevance theory, lexis, and the communication of impressions’. Lingua, 1751: 36–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, & Deirdre Wilson. 2015. Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (2). 117–149.Google Scholar
Tamori, Ikuhiro & Lawrence Clifford Schourup. 1999. Onomatope: keitai-to imi [Onomatopoeia: form and meaning]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Google Scholar
Tipton, Rebecca & Louisa Desilla. 2019. The Routledge handbook of translation and pragmatics. Oxon/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2003. Interjections, language, and the “showing/saying” continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition 11 (1). 39–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Meaningnn” and “showing”: Gricean intentions and relevance-theoretic intentions. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2). 131–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Recipes: Beyond the words. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture 10 (4). 67–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. That bloody so-and-so has retired: Expressives revisited. Lingua 175–1761. 20–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wrembel, Magdalena. 2010. Sound symbolism in foreign language phonological acquisition. Research in Language 8 (1). 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar