SPEECH FUNCTIONS AND TRANSLATION
3.
LANGUAGE AND SPEECH FUNCTIONS
Pragmatics studies language in use. Following Saussure, language in use is speech (cf. langue and parole). Large stretches of speech are called discourse.
The use of language is associated with language functions. By function linguists mean the role and purpose of the language. Sometimes the term function is understood in a more narrow way. In this sense, the term determines a role of a language element in syntax (the function of the subject, predicate, or object) and in morphology (the function of a form, the function of the suffix, etc.). Correspondingly, the term function refers to an element position in a construction or the meaning of a form or construction.
Two language functions are most widely recognized communicative and cognitive (formulating thoughts), though there have been many attempts to establish more detailed classifications of language functions. The Austrian psychologist and linguist Karl Buhler singled out three language functions manifested in any speech event: expressive function (relating with the text producer), appealing function (focusing on the receptor), and referential (representation) function (representing objects and phenomena, i.e. the subject matter). Yuri Stepanov also based his language functions on the semiotic principle. He designated the nominative, syntactic, and pragmatic functions as universal properties of the language corresponding to the three aspects of semiotics semantics, syntax, and pragmatics.
The question of differentiating between language functions and speech functions has so far been disputable. Some linguists do not discriminate language functions from speech functions. Others stress the difference between them. While language functions are universal and constant, speech functions are typical of a certain speech event; they are temporary, characterized by definite language elements. Language functions are realized through speech.
The most recognizable classification of speech functions belongs to Roman Jakobson. He distinguished six functions: referential (informative), expressive (emotive), conative (voluntative), phatic (creating and maintaining social contact), metalingual (describing language), and poetic (aesthetic).
Following M.A.K. Halliday, translation theorists added one more function to the list interpersonal function, which implies the speakers intervention in the use of language and the expression of attitude.
Obviously, each discourse has more than one speech functions. As a matter of fact, it combines a number of functions but one of them is always predominant.
INTERPERSONAL FUNCTION AND MODALITY IN TRANSLATION.
Interpersonal function as the expression of attitude is actualized through the category of modality, which is an obligatory feature of any utterance. The term modality determines a wide range of the speakers attitude toward reality and the content of the utterance. Modality includes utterance oppositions on the basis of whether they assert or deny, whether they denote real, hypothetical or unreal information, whether the speaker is sure or hesitant, whether s/he finds the information necessary, advisable, etc.
|
|
|
There are two types of modality - objective and subjective.
Objective modality is obligatory for any sentence. It is expressed by the grammatical category of mood*, sometimes supported by particles ( ! Above all, Id like to declare the following) Mood expresses the speakers attitude to the action, whether it is real or unreal. The borderline between real and unreal actions is expressed in English by a modal verb: He might have lost his sight. . In Russian the corresponding meaning is stressed by the particles . Whereas particles are very important in Russian, modal verb and subjunctive mood forms are more frequent in English: Dont you think it would be wise? ?
Some particles require special attention to their usage in translation, especially such as hardly, scarcely, positive in form but negative in meaning: Its hardly my fault. . Id scarcely have done it if I didnt think it was absolutely necessary. , , , , .
Assertion and denial of facts is another kind of objective modality. Comparing English and Russian utterances from this angle, researchers point to a greater degree of categoricity in the speech of Russians, which often leads to antonymous translations**: I dont want people playing the piano at all hours of the day and night. , .
John didnt disobey his father. .
Will you be in for supper? asked her mother, sticking her head out from behind the kitchen door. I dont think so, shouted Sally. (J. Archer) ? , . , , .
Special difficulties, connected with the translators knowledge base, arise when sentence negation is used for pragmatic purposes - to contrast the subject matter to common habits and customs. The case may be illustrated by the description of a characters appearance from the play Orpheus Descending by T. Williams: Val enters the store. He is a young man, about 30, who has a kind of wild beauty about him He does not wear Levis ( ['lı:vaiz] "" ( [jeans] )) or a T-shirt ( ) Vals clothes do not match the image of a typical young man of the time. To give this background information, a translator extends the sentence, giving necessary comments: . 30 , . .
Another problem regarding the positive and negative type of speech is the problem of enantiosemy, or a linguistic paradox, when a word or a sentence develops contradictory meanings, both positive and negative ( dashing rider 'slashing fellow'). An enantiosemic utterance can be used ironically in the sentence and the connotation should be rendered in translation: You are a beauty! , ! A pretty business! ! A fine specimen! ! In Russian modality here is expressed by an inverted word order and intonation.
|
|
|
Language can fix evaluative connotations with different words. In this case they become paronyms (['pærənım]; (, , , ) and can be easily confused in translation: a terrible accident a terrific speed .
Subjective modality reveals the speakers attitude to the content of the utterance. This may reveal assuredness or hesitation. The means of expressing this type of modality in English are modal verbs (must, can, may, will), modal words (probably, perhaps, evidently, etc.), syntactic constructions (He is said to be clever the speaker does not assert the statement definitely). In Russian, these means are also modal words (; , ), constructions of the type , and particles (, , ). In expressing this type of modality, particles play a more important role in Russian than they do in English: After us, the deluge. . There cant have been a hundred people in the hall. .
One should keep in mind a range of subjective modal meanings expressed by English modal verbs:
incredulity, verbalized by the negative modal verb can/could:
They cant be waiting there. , . Or a little more categorical: .
doubt, expressed by can/could in the interrogative structure:
Could he have said it? ?
uncertainty, expressed by may/might (not):
He may be quite at a loss now. , .
And now that Cicely had married, she might be having children too. , , .
You might have been right. , . ( )
near certainty, expressed by must:
The cooling process must have begun several billion years ago. , , . In Russian this modal meaning is also expressed by the words , , , and others.
prediction or supposition based on expectation rather than fact - will/would:
Jolyon is late. I suppose it ll be June keeping him. . , .
That would be his father, I expect. , .
Like any other verb expressing this type of modality, will may be used with the perfect infinitive. Forms like these signify supposition close to certainty:
My honourable friends will have heard the tremendous news broadcast throughout the world. , , , .
ability and possibility denoted by can, may. It is necessary here to draw attention to Russian and English asymmetry. While English uses modal verbs to show physical ability or possibility, the Russian utterance is apt to be devoid of any forms with this meaning: I can hear footsteps, whos coming? , ?
Possibility can be expressed by the modal verbs can and may, though they are not always interchangeable. Along with stylistic discrepancies (informal and formal, respectively), they differ in degree of objectivity, with may expressing a possibility depending on circumstances, and can, on the subject. A good example of colliding these modals is provided in an extract from Mikes: A foreigner cannot improve. Once a foreigner always a foreigner. There is no way out for him. He may become British; he can never become English. This difference in modal verb meanings can be translated through explanation: . . . , .
|
|
|
Another set of modal meanings is necessity, compulsion, prohibition. In Russian they are mostly expressed by the modal adjectives , . These meanings range from very formal to informal and increasingly subjective:
very formal necessity caused by schedule, plan, or formal agreement is expressed by be to: The prime-minister is to go to Paris on a two-day visit. - .
the expression be supposed to do is a neutral and informal way to say that it is the accepted way of behaving, the right thing to do according to the rule: I didnt know what I was supposed to do so I just waited for Mr. Garcia to come back. , , , c.
the expression be expected to do is used to show that people think you should do a particular thing because of your position, age, etc. Can I help myself to something to eat? Of course, you are expected to, you are our guest. - ? , . .
circumstantial necessity is rendered in English by have to and is equal to the Russian , : My CD player had a design fault so I didnt have to pay to have it repaired. - , .
a moral or legal duty is shown by the modal verb should: Technically, you should ask permission before you use the computer, but most people dont bother. , , .
authoritative necessity, admonition (, ) (I think it would be good for you) is expressed by must and need: Carolyns behavior is getting worse and worse we must do something about it. ; - . I think you need to defrost your refrigerator. , .
the expression it is better shows that it is the fairest or most polite thing to do in a particular situation: The keys were in her dads car but she thought shed better ask him before she took it. , , , , .
advisability is signaled by the modal verb ought to, especially to stress ones personal opinion (more formally it is expressed by should). This verb corresponds to the Russian : Do you think we ought to call the police? , ?
Modal verbs, varying from formal to informal style, may indicate interpersonal relations between communicators. Such pragmatic characteristics must be taken into account in translating. Sometimes, according to the functional principle of translation, it is necessary to make a translation substitution of a modal verb, even if it has a direct equivalent in Russian. This can be illustrated by an extract from a modern novel: Can I have the stamp? Goober asked. May I, Hellen corrected. , . , . The modal verb may, being more formal than can, sounds more polite in the described situation. In Russian, the translators M. Loriye and E. Kalashnikova expressed politeness with the etiquette word .
A kind of 'etiquette phrase, expressing invitation, is the modal verb will / would. Its etiquette usage is predetermined by its modal meaning of consent, volition: If you will come this way, Ill see if the principal is free. , , , , . Here also the modal verb is substituted with the parenthetical word .
|
|
|
When translating modal verbs from English into Russian, one should be careful of polysemy [pə'lisimi]. A modal verb may have several meanings; which one to choose can be decided only in context. For example, He may live here can be equal to (permission), , , (possibility or uncertainty).
