Dear Ernst-August,
Thank you for your response and look forward to reading your new book!
By a "gutt translation", for the sake of saving processing
effort/brevity, assuming this to be manifest to the addressees,
I (echoically) meant a translation, which interpretively
resembles the original in relevant aspects (Gutt 2000: 24, 36, 105-106, 111, 118, 134, 210, 214, 217, 219, 225, 231-2
...).
Thus, I'm rephrasing:
A translation, which interpretively resembles the original in relevant aspects
would be the one in which the interpreter manages to produce a text, which bears
interpretive resemblance with its source in terms of ad hoc (Carston
2002, Wilson to appear) conceptual "metaphoric" mapping
(Lakoff&Johnson 1980) (based on the culture-specific organizational
sets of knowledge/aka frames, schemas, scenarious, cultural
metarepresentations - the ones that are relatively stable and ...ouch,
contagious), hearers/readers (guided by the principle of relevance)
activate in the target linguistic culture. The presumption of
relevance does not show readers how to conceptually ad hoc lakoff-map, however,
would it be theoretically plausible to assume that it stimulates readers of the
translation to do that the way they always (subconsciously) lakoff-do in intra-lingual
communicative situations?
Carston, R. (2002) "Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication". Blackwell, Oxford.
Gutt, E.-A. (2000) "Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context". Oxford: Blackwell.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) "Metaphors We Live By". Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Sperber, D. (1996) "Explaining culture: A Naturalistic Approach". Oxford: Blackwell.
Wilson, D. (to appear)"Relevance theory and lexical pragmatics." In Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista
di Linguistica, Special Issue on Pragmatics and the Lexicon.
Best wishes,
Andre
Tuesday, November 9, 2004, 8:36:26 PM, you wrote:
easo> Dear Andre,
easo> In response to your question about an updated
easo> relevance-theoretic account of
easo> translation: I am in the process of writing a follow-up book to the first
easo> one. While its main task will be to flesh out in much more detail the
easo> different cognitive aspects involved in the translation task, it will
easo> certainly also incorporate the more recent developments in relevance theory,
easo> such as metarepresentation and also ad hoc concepts.
easo> Regarding your second point: Let me say very clearly that there is no such
easo> thing as a "gutt translation". As I tried to make as clear as I could in my
easo> book, its purpose is not to propose any particular way of translating, but
easo> to provide an explanatory account of how translation as a particular mode of
easo> interlingual communication works, what cognitive limitations it is subject
easo> to, etc. That's why the final chapter of Gutt 1991 is entitled "a unified
easo> account of translation", meaning to cover the whole range. (It seems about
easo> as appropriate to talk about a "gutt way of translating" as it would be to
easo> talk about "a Sperber and Wilson way of communicating".)
easo> Best wishes,
easo> Ernst-August Gutt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 16:58:48 GMT