Dear Andre,
Thanks for the two follow-up messages. Here my response.
1) I don't think capitalisation of Gutt would have made any difference. We
apparently miscommunicated due to a mismatch of contexts. My work has quite
often been misinterpreted by some as trying to promote a particular approach
to doing translation, i.e. direct translation - which is declaredly not the
aim of my work at all. Your expression "gutt translation" immediately
triggered this context and that was why I responded as I did: since I do not
advocate any particular translation approach, the question how such an
approach would handle certain problems is a non-issue.
2) Assuming that I have now understood the background of your question more
adequately, I am still not sure what you are getting at. As far as I am
aware, the term 'adhoc concept' has been introduced to account for the fact
that there can be significant differences (through tightening or loosening)
between the concept occurring in an explicature and the lexical concept by
which it was triggered. Translation as interpretive use relies on
interpretive resemblance between utterances which I have proposed to define
in terms of the sharing of explicatures and implicatures of original and
translated utterance. Whether the concepts occurring in the explicatures are
identical to any lexically specified concepts or are adhoc does not seem to
make any difference to interpretive resemblance, as far as I can see. Also,
I am not sure of what significance "Lakoff-mapping" is here. But perhaps I
am missing something.
With best wishes,
Ernst-August
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-relevance@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk
> [mailto:owner-relevance@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of
> Andre Sytnyk
> Sent: 09 November 2004 21:42
> To: relevance@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk
> Subject: Re[2]: RT list: an ad hoc account of translation
>
> Dear Ernst-August,
> Had I capitalized Gutt in a "gutt translation", it probably
> wouldn't have triggered the much anticipated response from
> you (and it's an adjective too).
> Interestingly enough, you seem to have skipped processing my
> (for what it's worth) informative intention, but went
> straight for the communicative/phatic one. Does this prove
> the supremacy of having to recognize one's
> communicative/phatic intention before deciding whether to
> process the (alleged) informativeness of one's message...
> An addition to the direct access hypothesis?
>
> Regarding "a Sperber and Wilson way of communicating", well,
> there have been precedents when people used something very
> closely resembling this expression: cf. "a discourse may be "S&W"
> relevant" and "S&W irrelevant" (Wilson 1998a).
>
> Best wishes,
> Andre
>
> Tuesday, November 9, 2004, 8:36:26 PM, you wrote:
>
> (It seems about as appropriate to talk about a "gutt way of
> translating" as it would be to talk about "a Sperber and
> Wilson way of communicating".)
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.789 / Virus Database: 534 - Release Date: 07/11/2004
>
>
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.789 / Virus Database: 534 - Release Date: 07/11/2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 12 2004 - 16:49:56 GMT