Translation And Pragmatics

3273 Words14 Pages
One of the salient characteristics of translation is its having strong links with a wide range of disciplines. Consequently, translation has adopted a number of theories and concepts of various domains such as, of course, linguistics. The relationship between translation and pragmatics, being one of the major fields of linguistics, is peculiarly profound. Pragmatics is the study of the purposes and intentions for which sentences are used, of the circumstances of the real world under which sentences may be correctly used as utterances (Stalnaker 1972: 380 as cited in Hatim, 1997, p. 32). That is, as Mey (2001) contends “[of] the general conditions which allow, and afford, a particular act of speaking” (p. 94). This paper shall be investigating…show more content…
12). As Mey (2001) puts it, “pragmatics studies the use of language in human communication as determined by the conditions of society” (p. 6). The idea to be drawn from the previous definitions is that pragmatics is primarily concerned with going beyond the ostensible meaning and focusing on examining utterances in terms of their function rather than their form, that is, exploring their communicative dimensions. In translation, pragmatic equivalence has to deal with how source language utterances are construed and how their meanings are reproduced in the target language with a particular focus on the covert underlying meaning, or, more precisely, the intentionality and associated purposes of a language user. Pragmatics focuses on language in use, “language as an activity which produces speech acts” (Mey, 2001, p. 93). Pragmatic equivalence is achieved when an SL expression and TL expression have the same effect on the listener/reader or can be used to perform the same speech…show more content…
Oishi (2006), for instance, synthesizes Austin’s findings stating that illocutionary acts fall into five different categories: verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behabitives and expositives. Oishi notes that by verdictives Austin has contended that when a speaker utters an utterance, he or she can deliver a judgment, whether official or unofficial. Oishi (2006) posits that exercitives, in the Austinian perspective, imply that by producing an utterance a speaker may “exert influence or exercise power” (p. 4) or give a decision in favour of or against a certain course of action. Further, Oishi notes that commissives, for Austin, suggest that a speaker may undertake an obligation or reveal an intention. That is, the speaker commits himself or herself to perform a certain action. Oishi (2006) also maintains that behabitive, as viewed by Austin, denote that by producing an utterance a speaker may “adopt attitude, or express feelings” (p. 4). Finally, Oishi argues that by expositives Austin has posited that when a speaker produces an utterance, he or she may expound reasons and views (p.

More about Translation And Pragmatics

Open Document