Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society: Online-First Articles

Deictic shifts and re-contextualization in translation

A case study of English and Persian parallel texts

 | Yasouj University
ORCID logo | University of Isfahan
This study investigates the challenges of translating English demonstratives into Persian, with a focus on deictic shifts and their discourse-pragmatic implications. It aims to outline the recontextualization that deictic terms undergo during translation and the role of discourse-pragmatic factors in this process. Utilizing a parallel database of literary and academic texts in English and Persian, all instances of English demonstratives and their Persian counterparts have been identified and compared based on type, form, and quantity. An analysis of 1,849 instances of demonstrative discrepancies reveals two primary types of deictic shifts: (1) genuine shifts, which involve a change in the deictic center due to the translator’s (inter)subjectivity, leading to the re-contextualization of discourse, and (2) non-genuine shifts, where there is no change in the origo. The findings indicate a tendency for genuine shifts to alternate between distal-to-proximal and proximal-to-distal, with a marked preference for distal-to-proximal shifts, attributed to the unmarked nature of proximal deixis in Persian. Furthermore, translators frequently replace pure deictics with impure forms or add deictic terms for clarity, reflecting broader translation strategies aimed at ensuring the definiteness and explicitness of referents.
Keywords: deictic shift, translation, english, persian, re-contextualization, (inter)subjectivity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical frameworks
    • 2.1The nature of deixis
    • 2.2Translation as a re-contextualization process
    • 2.3(Inter)subjectivity of translation discourse
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Results of the study
    • 4.1Translational deictic shifts
      • 4.1.1Genuine deictic shifts
        • (a)Shift from proximal to distal deictics, or vice versa
        • (b)Shift from distal to proximal along with replacing plural with singular deictics
        • (c)Shift from proximal to distal, or vice versa, along with replacing pure with impure deictics
      • 4.1.2Pseudo-deictic shifts
        • (a)Replacing pure with impure deictics, or vice versa
        • (b)Zero substitution
        • (c)Addition
    • 4.2Quantitative analysis
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 19 December 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23090.diy
References (74)
References
Abualadas, Othman Ahmad. 2018. “Translation Shifts in Spatial and Temporal Deixis: A Trend towards a More Subjective Narrative Mood in Fiction Translation.” Arab World English Journal for Translation & Literary Studies 2 (1): 182–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Deictic Shifts in Fiction Translation: Evidence of a More Marked Perspective in the Translated Narrative.” Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 9 (2): 424–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amouzadeh, Mohammad, and Masoumeh Diyanati. 2022. “Proximal and Distal Terms in Persian Interactions: An Integrative Approach.” Language Sciences 921: 101485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2024. “Alternating Mechanism of Person Deictic Terms in Persian Conversations: A Cognitive-dialogic Account.” Journal of Pragmatics 225 1: 87–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen, and Edward Keenan. 1985. “Deixis.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 259–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1992. “Introduction: John Gumperz’ Approach to Contextualization.” In The Contextualization of Language, ed. by Peter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio, 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “From Context to Contextualization.” Links and Letters 31: 11–28.Google Scholar
Bakker, Matthijs, Cees Koster, and Kitty van Leuven-Zwart. 1998. “Shifts of Translation.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 226–231. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bartkutė, Darija, and Daiva Verikaitė-Gaigalienė. 2020. “Spatial Deictics in Translation: A Case of Proximal Demonstratives in English and Lithuanian.” Languages in Contrast 20(1): 84–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumann, Richard, and Charles Briggs. 1990. “Poetics and Performance as Critical Perspectives on Language and Social Life.” Annual Review of Anthropology 191: 59–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosseaux, Charlotte. 2007. How Does It Feel? Point of View in Translation: The Case of Virginia Woolf into French. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dan. 2003. The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1990 [1934]. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language [orig. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der language]. Translated by Donald F. Goodwin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Lewis. 1865. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. London: Alma Classics LTD.Google Scholar
Catford, John Cunnison. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Bruce. 1979. Schaum’s Outline of Theory and Problems of Introduction to Sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cyrus, Lea. 2009. “Old Concepts, New Ideas: Approaches to Translation Shifts.” MonTI (1): 87–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Roald. 1964. Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Daryabandari, Najaf. 1993. Pirmard va daryâ [The old man and the sea]. Tehran: Kharazmi.Google Scholar
Dayter, Daria, Miriam A. Locher, and Thomas C. Messerli. 2023. Pragmatics in Translation: Mediality, Participation and Relational Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayter, Daria. 2020. “Strategies in a corpus of simultaneous interpreting. Effects of directionality, phraseological richness, and position in speech event.” Meta 65(3): 594–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1975. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis 1971. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Goethals, Patrick, and July De Wilde. 2009. “Deictic Center Shifts in Literary Translation: The Spanish Translation of Nooteboom’s Het Volgende Verhaal.” Meta 54 (4): 770–794. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. “Contextualization and Understanding.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haghshenas, Ali Mohammad. 1992. Târikh-e mokhtasar-e zabânshenâsi [A short history of linguistics]. Tehran: Marakaz.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 2007. “A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Translation Shifts.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 21(1): 105–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William, Sachiko Ide, and Yasuhiro Katagiri. 2009. “Towards an Emancipatory Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 411: 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William. 1990. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. “The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference.” In Rethinking Context. Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 43–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Deixis and Indexicality.” In Foundations of Pragmatics, ed. by Wolfram Bublitz, Andreas H. Jucker, and Klaus P. Schneider, 315–346. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hemingway, Ernest. 1952. The Old Man and the Sea. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Heydari, Nasrin. 1995. Negâhi be zabân [A look at language]. Tehran: SAMT Publication.Google Scholar
Honarmandi, Hassan. 1972. Alis dar sarzamin-e ajâyeb [Alice in the wonderland]. Tehran: Zavvar.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2008. “Towards a Linguistic Theory of Translation as Re-contextualization and a Third Space Phenomenon.” Linguistica Antverpiensia 71: 149–176.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2014. Pragmatics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Michael, Carolyn Kroehler, and James Vander Zanden. 1999. Sociology: The Core. Boston: McGraw-Hill College.Google Scholar
Hushmand, Mehrdad, and Gholam-Reza Rashidi. 2015. Mabâni-ye jâme’eshenâsi [Introduction to sociology]. Tehran: SAMT Publication.Google Scholar
Jafari, Fath-Allah. 1997. Chârli va kârkhâne-ye shokolâtsâzi [Charlie and the chocolate factory]. Tehran: Roshangaran va Motale’at-e Zanan.Google Scholar
Jonasson, Kerstin. 2001. “Traduction et point de vue narratif.” In Aspekter av Litterar Oversattning fran Franska, ed. by Olof Eriksson, 69–81. Växjö: Linnaeus University Press.Google Scholar
Kang, Ji-Hae. 2007. “Re-contextualization of News Discourse: A Case Study of Translation of News Discourse on North Korea.” The Translator 13(2): 219–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Translating Mad Cow Disease: A Case Study of Subtitling for a Television News Magazine.” Meta 57(2): 439–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labrador, Belén. 2011. “A Corpus-based Study of the Use of Spanish Demonstratives as Translation Equivalents of English Demonstratives.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 19(1): 71–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian, and Adriana Şerban. 2003. “Deixis as an Interactive Feature in Literary Translations from Romanian into English.” Target 15(2): 269–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meifang, Zhang, and Pan Li. 2009. “Introducing a Chinese Perspective on Translation Shifts.” The Translator 15(2): 351–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mount, Allyson. 2015. “Character, Impropriety, and Success: A Unified Account of Indexicals.” Mind & Language 30(1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munday, Jeremy, Sara Ramos Pinto, and Jacob Blakesley. 2022. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (5th edition). London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 1998. “A Computer-assisted Approach to the Analysis of Translation Shifts.” Meta 43(4): 542–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1997. “A functional typology of translations.” In Text Typology and Translation, ed. by Anna Trosborg, 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavesi, Maria. 2013. “This and That in the Language of Film Dubbing: A Corpus-based Analysis.” Meta 58(1): 103–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raiyati, Rajabali. 2000. Production of the Anaphora by Persian Learners of English in the Narrative and Descriptive Written Discourse. PhD thesis. Allameh Tabatabaie University.
Ribera, Josep, and Maria Josep Cuenca. 2013. “Use and Translation of Demonstratives in Fiction: a Contrastive Approach (English-Catalan).” Catalan Review: International Journal of Catalan Culture 271: 27–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Bill. 1994. “Deixis and Translation.” In Tenaga: The Irish Yearbook of Applied Linguistics, ed. by Dónall P. Ó Baoill, 27–39. Dublin: IRAAL.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Deictic Features and the Translator.” In The Pragmatics of Translation, ed. by Leo Hickey, 124–142. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John. 2009. A Study of Persian Discourse Structure. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Robins, Robert. 1979. A Short History of Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant. 1998. “Rethinking Re-contexualization in Professional Discourse Studies: An Epilogue.” Text 18(2): 301–318.Google Scholar
Shahrabi, Hossein, and Somayyeh Ganji. 2006. Râz-e dâvinchi [The Da Vinci Code]. Tehran: Zohreh.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Nick Enfield. 2017. “Deixis and the Interactional Foundations of Reference. In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Yan Huang, 217–239. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael, and Greg Urban (eds). 1996. Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Shifters, Linguistic Categories and Cultural Description”. In Meaning in Anthropology, ed. by Keith H. Basso and Henry A. Selby, 11–56. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Tavangar, Manoochehr, and Mohammad Amouzadeh. 2006. “Deictic Projection: An Enquiry into Future-oriented Past Tense in Persian.” Studia Linguistica 601: 97–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tavassoli, Gholam-Abbas, and Reza Fazel. 2008. Mabâni-ye jâme’shenâsi [Introduction to sociology]. Tehran: SAMT Publication.Google Scholar
Tipton, Rebecca, and Louisa Desilla (eds). 2019. The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Pragmatics. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 2004. “Probabilistic Explanations in Translation Studies: Welcome as They Are, Would They Qualify as Universals?” In Translation Universals: Do they exist? ed. by Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, 15–32. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. 1958. Stylistique Comparee’ du Francais et de l’Anglais: Methode de Traduction. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, Christiane, and Wolfgang Klein. 2002. “Quaestio and L-perspectivation.” In Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse, ed. by Carl F. Graumann and Werner Kallmeyer, 59–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yule, George. 1985. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zupan, Simon. 2006. “Repetition and Translation Shifts.” ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries 3(1–2): 257–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar