This study aims to investigate the use of deixis in a corpus of translations from twentieth century Romanian literature (novels and short stories) into English. Viewing deixis as an interactive feature of texts, it endeavours to find whether there are significant differences between the use of deixis in source texts and translations, and to see how systematic shifts as well as single occurrences can contribute to the shaping of a translated text which positions the reader in a different way from the source texts. It also explores ways in which the translators position themselves with respect to the text. The study finds that the main tendency is one of distancing, whereby proximal deictics tend to become distals, with the effect that readers will be presented with a translation which elicits less involvement on their part than the original text did in its context.
ed.1998The Routledge encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Cartianu, Ana, Leon Levit¸chi and Virgil Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti
1964An advanced course in modern Romanian. Bucharest: Publishing House for Scientific Books.
1985A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Daniliuc, LauraRadu Daniliuc
2000Descriptive Romanian grammar. München: LINCOM EUROPA.
1995Colloquial Romanian: A complete language course, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
1996Linguistic criticism, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giles, Howard, Justine Coupland and Nikolas Coupland
eds.1991Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press.
Glover, Kelly D.
2000 “Proximal and distal deixis in negotiation talk”. Journal of pragmatics 32:7. 915–926.
et al.1966Gramatica limbii române I1 and II1, 2nd edition. Bucuresti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania.
1984Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Impey, Michael H.
1997 “The receptivity of Romanian literature at home and abroad: Tradition, innovation, and the avantgarde”. Kurt W. Treptow, ed. Romania and western civilization.Iaşi: The Center for Romanian Studies.
Lavandera, Beatriz R.
1978 “Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop?”. Language and society 7:2. 171–182.
1996 “Comparable corpora: Towards a corpus linguistic methodology for the empirical study of translation”. Marcel Thelen and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, eds. Translation and meaning Part 3. Maastricht: Hogeschool Maastricht 1996 153–163.
1989An A-Z of English grammar and usage. London, Melbourne, Auckland: Edward Arnold.
2014. This and That in the Language of Film Dubbing: A Corpus-Based Analysis. Meta 58:1 ► pp. 103 ff.
Urzha, A. V.
2020. Combining Linguistic Methods of Studying Egocentric Units in Russian Translated Narratives. Bulletin of Kemerovo State University 22:3 ► pp. 879 ff.
2018. Foreground and Background in a Narrative: Trends in Foreign Linguistic and Translation Studies. Slovene 7:2 ► pp. 494 ff.
2020. Approximating or Distancing? The Use of Deixis, Anaphora and Historic Present in Russian Translations of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer”. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija 2. Jazykoznanije :3 ► pp. 72 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 may 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.