Deixis as an interactive feature in literary translations from Romanian into English
Ian Mason and Adriana Şerban
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh | University of Leeds
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.
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.
[ p. 292 ]References
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.
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 I and II, 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.
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. van
1989 1990 “Translation and original: Similarities and dissimilarities”. Target 1:2. 151–181 2:1. 69–95.
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1968Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1977Semantics 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1986Rumanian. London, Sydney, Dover, New Hampshire: Croom Helm.
et al.1983Studii de analiza contrastiva a limbilor engleza si româna. Timişoara: Tipografia Universităţii din Timişoara.
[ p. 293 ]
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
1972A grammar of contemporary English. Harlow: Longman.
1998 “Deictic features and the translator”. Leo Hickey, ed. The pragmatics of translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters 1998 124–142.
1993Language, ideology and point of view. London and New York: Routledge.
1990The stylistics of fiction: A literary linguistic approach. London and New York: Routledge.
1980In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
1995Descriptive Translation Studies—and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1985Dutch novels translated into English: The transformation of a ‘minority’ literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi.