Deixis as an interactive feature in literary translations from Romanian into English

Ian Mason and Adriana Şerban
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh | University of Leeds

Abstract

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.

Keywords
Table of contents

The phenomenon of deixis, held to be a more or less universal feature of natural languages, relates to the spatio-temporal co-ordinates of the speech situation. That is, languages display structural characteristics which allow users to orientate their expression to the here-and-now of the speaker, the place and time of utterance. Traditional categories are thus person deixis (e.g. I/you/he, she), place deixis (here/there; this/that; come/go) and time deixis (now/then; tense systems). To these may be added (Levinson 1983: 62) discourse deixis (‘the encoding of reference to portions of the unfolding discourse’, as in ‘We list below...’ or ‘And that is how the story ends’) and social deixis (‘the encoding of social distinctions that are relative to participant-roles’, e.g. French tu/vous). In this article, we shall restrict discussion to place and time deixis and specifically [ p. 270 ]to those two-termsets which, in the language systems of Romanian and English, reflect relative nearness (proximals) or distance (distals) from the point of view of the speaker/writer. Thus, in what follows we shall be particularly interested in translators’ responses to the Romanian proximals and distals and to their use of corresponding English forms. Table 1 below lists some basic Romanian indexicals (as deictics are called) and their English counterparts.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

[ p. 292 ]References

Baker, Mona
1993 “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and applications”. Mona Baker and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, eds. Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1993 233–250.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
ed. 1998The Routledge encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Cartianu, Ana, Leon Levit¸chi and Virgil Ştefănescu-Drăgăneşti
1964An advanced course in modern Romanian. Bucharest: Publishing House for Scientific Books.Google Scholar
Crystal, David
1985A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Daniliuc, Laura Radu Daniliuc
2000Descriptive Romanian grammar. München: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
Deletant, Dennis
1995Colloquial Romanian: A complete language course, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger
1996Linguistic criticism, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Glover, Kelly D.
2000 “Proximal and distal deixis in negotiation talk”. Journal of pragmatics 32:7. 915–926.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Graur, Alexandru
et al. 1966Gramatica limbii române I and II, 2nd edition. Bucuresti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney
1984Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz R.
1978 “Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop?”. Language and society 7:2. 171–182.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara
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.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1989An A-Z of English grammar and usage. London, Melbourne, Auckland: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. van
1989 1990 “Translation and original: Similarities and dissimilarities”. Target 1:2. 151–181 2:1. 69–95.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1968Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1977Semantics 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham
1986Rumanian. London, Sydney, Dover, New Hampshire: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Pârlog, Hortensia
et al. 1983Studii de analiza contrastiva a limbilor engleza si româna. Timişoara: Tipografia Universităţii din Timişoara.Google Scholar
[ p. 293 ]
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
1972A grammar of contemporary English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Richardson, Bill
1998 “Deictic features and the translator”. Leo Hickey, ed. The pragmatics of translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters 1998 124–142.Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul
1993Language, ideology and point of view. London and New York: Routledge.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Toolan, Michael
1990The stylistics of fiction: A literary linguistic approach. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1980In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
1995Descriptive Translation Studies—and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Vanderauwera, Ria
1985Dutch novels translated into English: The transformation of a ‘minority’ literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence
1995The translator’s invisibility. London: Routledge.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar

Primary texts

Petrescu, Camil
1958A man amongst men 1. Bucharest: Foreign Languages Publishing House. Tr. by Eugenia FarcaGoogle Scholar
1982Un om între oameni (in Opere IV). Bucureşti: Editura Minerva.Google Scholar
Popovici, Titus
1957The stranger. Bucharest: Foreign Languages Publishing House. Tr. by Lazăr Marinescu.Google Scholar
1989Străinul. Timişoara: Editura Facla.Google Scholar
Sadoveanu, Mihail
1958 “The first thorn”. Mihail Sadoveanu. Evening tales. Bucharest: Foreign Languages Publishing House. Translator’s name not mentioned (possibly E. Farca, L. Marinescu, S. Radu and V. Alexandru).Google Scholar
1981 “Intăiul spin”. Mihail Sadoveanu. Povestiri I. Bucureşti: Cartea Românească.Google Scholar
1983 “Cuza Voda”. Costache Negruzzi et al.. History and legend in Romanian short stories and tales. Bucharest: Minerva Publishing House. Tr. by Ana Cartianu.Google Scholar
1955 “Cuza Vodă”. Mihail Sadoveanu. Opere IV. Bucureşti: Editura de Stat pentru Literatură şi Artă.Google Scholar
Voiculescu, Vasile
1986 “Among the wolves”. Vasile Voiculescu. Tales of fantasy and magic. Bucharest: Minerva Publishing House. Tr. by Ana Cartianu.Google Scholar
1998 “In mijlocul lupilor”. Vasile Voiculescu. Integrala prozei literare. Bucuresti: Anastasia.[ p. 294 ]Google Scholar