Journals / RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2020 / Sayı: 21

An expositional study on the translation processes of politeness strategies through register analysis

Nezaket stratejilerinin kesit analiziyle çevrilme süreçleri üzerine açımlayıcı bir inceleme

Kadir Sarıaslan(Yalova Üniversitesi, Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu)0000-0002-3575-8319
Korkut Uluç İşisağ(Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Mütercim Tercümanlık Bölümü, İngilizce Mütercim Tercümanlık ABD)0000-0002-3569-4669
Pages
949–966
Publication Date
2020-12-21
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The core of the analysis is to assess the translation of negative, positive, bald on record and off record politeness strategies and note if any drastic deviations are made in the target texts that may potentially distort interpersonal relations and balance and the context of situation designated by the author for the original text.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:It is known that every language and culture bear its own characteristics and ways of expressing politeness.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, politeness strategies that have been put forward so far have almost always referred to the pivotal taxonomy of Penelope Brown and Steven C.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The core of the analysis is to assess the translation of negative, positive, bald on record and off record politeness strategies and note if any drastic deviations are made in the target texts that may potentially distort interpersonal relations and balance and the context of situation designated by the author for the original text.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:dilsel nezaket · kesit analizi · linguistic politeness

Abstract

It is known that every language and culture bear its own characteristics and ways of expressing politeness. However, politeness strategies that have been put forward so far have almost always referred to the pivotal taxonomy of Penelope Brown and Steven C. Levinson (1978). The four-super strategies classified to designate and adjust the appropriateness of actions or speech acts have been mostly useful, but the process of translating the strategies in question from one language to another has not only required criticism due to the uniqueness of languages but also led to modification at linguistic level. The motivation of creating the correspondent politeness strategy in the target language has provided translators with some amount of liberty, which has helped them deal with the phenomenon through functionality. The functional equivalence suggested by Juliane House and Basil Hatim and Ian Mason requires the analysis of register; field, mode and tenor. This study aims to assess the translational processes of requests, an example of directives, with a comparative approach comparing the four randomly chosen samples extracted from three translated versions of the worldwide famous play of Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman. The core of the analysis is to assess the translation of negative, positive, bald on record and off record politeness strategies and note if any drastic deviations are made in the target texts that may potentially distort interpersonal relations and balance and the context of situation designated by the author for the original text.

Özet

Her dil ve kültürün kendi özellikleri ve nezaket ifade etme biçimlerine sahip olduğu bilinmektedir. Bununla birlikte, şimdiye kadar ortaya atılmış olan nezaket stratejileri çoğunlukla Penelope Brown ve Steven C. Levinson’ın merkezi sınıflandırmasına atıfta bulunmaktadır. Eylemlerin ve söz eylemlerin uygunluğunu dizayn etmek ve ayarlamak için sınıflandırması yapılan dört süper strateji çoğunlukla faydalı olmuştur, fakat söz konusu stratejileri bir dilden başka bir dile çevirme süreci sadece dillerin benzersizliğinden dolayı eleştiri almakla kalmamış aynı zamanda dilsel seviyede de değişiklik görülmesine yol açmıştır. Hedef dilde eşdeğer nezaket stratejisini yaratma motivasyonu çevirmenlere bu olguyla işlevsellik ışığında ilgilenme olanağı getiren bir miktar özgürlük alanı sunmuştur. Juliane House ve Basil Hatim ve Ian Mason tarafından önerilen işlevsel eşdeğerlik, söylem alanı, söylem tarzı ve söylem doğası olarak nitelendirilen kesit analizinin uygulanmasını gerekli görmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bir talimatlandırma örneği olarak ricaların çeviri süreçlerini, Arthur Miller’ın dünyaca ünlü tiyatro oyunu olan Satıcının Ölümü’ adlı eserinden ve onun üç farklı çevirisinden rastgele seçilme yöntemi ile alıntılanmış olan dört örneklemde karşılaştırmalı bir yaklaşımla değerlendirmektir. Analizin özü olumsuz, olumlu, doğrudan veya dolaylı nezaket stratejilerini değerlendirmek ve yazar tarafından orijinal eser için düzenlenen kişilerarası ilişkiler ve durum bağlamları hususunda hedef metinlerde büyük çaplı sapmaların yaşanıp yaşanmadığını kaydetmektir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sarıaslan, K., İşisağ, K. U. (2020). An expositional study on the translation processes of politeness strategies through register analysis. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 21, 949–966. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.843463

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (33)

  1. Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation. London, UK: Routledge
  2. Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1978). Politeness Some Universals in Language Usage: Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
  3. Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd ed). London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  4. Goffman, E. (1967). “On Face-Work, An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction”. Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Doubleday.
  5. Gregory, M. J. (1980) Perspectives on Translation from the Firthian Tradition. Meta 25 (4), 455-66.
  6. Grice, H.P. (1975). ‘Logic and Conversation’ In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3. New York: Academic Press. pp. 41-58.
  7. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
  8. Halliday, M. A. K., Hasan, R. (1985). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social- Semiotic Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
  9. Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
  10. Hatim, B.and I. Mason. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London, UK: Longman.
  11. Hatim, B., I. Mason. (1997). “Politeness in Screen Translating”, in: Lawrence
  12. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge. 430–446.
  13. Hatim, B., Munday, J. (2004). Translation an Advance Resource Book. New York, NY: Routledge.
  14. Hornby, M. S. (2006). The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company
  15. House, J. (2001) Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation, Meta, 46, 2, June, 243-257
  16. House, J. (2015). Translation Quality Assessment, Past and Present. New York, USA: Routledge
  17. House, J. (2018). Translation The Basics. New York, USA: Routledge
  18. Kasper G. (1990). ‘Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues.’ Journal of Pragmatics 14, 193–218.
  19. Katz, M. (2015). Politeness theory and the classification of speech acts. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 25(2), 45-55.
  20. Leech, G. N. (2005). Politeness: IS there an East and West Divide?. Journal of Foreign Languages. Lancaster University: UK
  21. Leech, G. N. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  22. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 403–426.
  23. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Mullany, L. (1999). Linguistic Politeness and Sex Differences in Broadcast Interviews. Leeds working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics. Leeds, UK
  25. Munday, J. (2008). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London, UK: Routledge
  26. Nord, C. (1997). Translating as Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained, Manchester: St. Jerome Publication.
  27. O’Keefe, A., Clancy, B., & Adolph’s, S. (2011). Introducing Pragmatics in Use. New York, USA: Routledge.
  28. Ogiermann, E. (2009). Politeness and In-directness across Cultures: A Comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian Requests. Journal of Politeness Research Language Behaviour Culture 5(2):189-216
  29. Searle J. R. (1976). A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Cambridge University Press Language in Society, Vol. 5, No.1 (Apr., 1976), pp. 1-23
  30. Tretyakova, T. P. (2016). On Politeness in Translation. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 3 (2016 9) 653-661
  31. Yetkiner, N. K. (2008). İncelik Kuramı ve Yüz Olgusu Bağlamında Çeviri Çalışmalarında İşlevsel-Edimbilimsel Eleştiri Yöntemi Uygulaması. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi. Cilt 19, 31-50.
  32. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
  33. Hatim, B., I. Mason. (1997). “Politeness in Screen Translating”, in: Lawrence