Journals / Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2008 / Sayı: 0

An Application of Functional-Pragmatic Model in Translation Studies Within the Context of Politeness Theory and Face Concept

İncelik Kuramı ve Yüz Olgusu Bağlamında Çeviri Çalışmalarında İşlevsel-Edimbilimsel Eleştiri Yöntemi Uygulanması

Pages
32–49
DOI
—
🏛️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)

It is also highly important to be aware of the difference between linguistic and socio-cultural text, and the on-going social-textual practice both in the translation and evaluation processes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The primary concern of the present study is to trace the reflections of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1978, 1987), facework, in translation studies using 1981’s functional-pragmatic model (1981,1997, 1998, 2001).
📊
Key Findings & Data:With regard to the theoretical framework of the functional-pragmatic model, the study is characterized by the comparison of the source text and the target text on three different levels: the levels of language/text, register (field, mode and tenor) and genre.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is also highly important to be aware of the difference between linguistic and socio-cultural text, and the on-going social-textual practice both in the translation and evaluation processes.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The primary concern of the present study is to trace the reflections of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1978, 1987), facework, in translation studies using 1981’s functional-pragmatic model (1981,1997, 1998, 2001). With regard to the theoretical framework of the functional-pragmatic model, the study is characterized by the comparison of the source text and the target text on three different levels: the levels of language/text, register (field, mode and tenor) and genre. The main emphasis is upon register analysis due its correlation with politeness and interpersonel language function. Our analyses show that the concept of face and politeness as part of pragmatic meaning in interpersonal relations is highly variable across both linguistic and cultural aspects. It is also highly important to be aware of the difference between linguistic and socio-cultural text, and the on-going social-textual practice both in the translation and evaluation processes.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, Brown ve Levinson’un incelik kuramı (1978, 1987) ve yüz çalışmalarının çeviri uygulamalarındaki yansımalarını House’un (1981, 1997, 1998, 2001) işlevsel-edimbilimsel modeli temelinde incelemektir. İşlevsel-edimbilimsel modelin kuramsal çerçevesine ilişkin olarak çalışma, kaynak metin ve erek metnin dil/metin, kesit dil (söylem alanı, söylem tarzı ve söylem doğası) ve metin türü olmak üzere üç temel düzey karşılaştırılmasına dayanmaktadır. Çalışmadaki temel odaklanma, kişilerarası dil işlevi ve incelik kuramı ile olan yakın ilişkisi nedeniyle kesit dili üzerinedir. Çözümlemeler, kişilerarası ilişkilerde edimbilimsel anlamın bir parçası olarak yüz ve incelik kavramlarının hem dilbilimsel hem de kültürel açıdan büyük farklılıklar gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Hem dilbilimsel ve sosyokültürel metin arasındaki farkların hem de çeviri ve değerlendirme süreçlerinde süregelen sosyo-metinsel uygulamanın ayırdına varmak son derece önemlidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KANSU, N. Y. (2008). An Application of Functional-Pragmatic Model in Translation Studies Within the Context of Politeness Theory and Face Concept. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 0, 32–49. https://ajindex.com/articles/159599

References (16)

  1. Bayraktaroğlu, A., and Sifianou, M. (2001). Linguistic Politeness Across boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In Goody, E., (editor) içinde, Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, pages 56-324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Catford, J.C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford:Oxford UP. Chen, R. (2001). Self-politeness: A proposal. Journal of Pragmatics, 33:87-106.
  4. Eelen, G. (2001).
  5. A Critique of Politeness Theories, Manchester: St. Jerome's Press.
  6. Fawcett, P. (2007).
  7. Translation and Language. Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing. Goffman, E. (1955). ‘On facework’. Psychiatry, 18: 213-231.
  8. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 3: 237-257.
  9. Gutt, E. A. (1991). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. London, Blackwell. Halliday, M. A.K. (1994): An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London, Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K., McIntosh, A. ve Stevens, P.D. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching London, Longman. Hatim, B. ve Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London/NewYork, Longman. Haugh, M., ve Hinze, C. (2003). A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concept of 'face' and ‘politeness’ in Chinese, English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1581–1611.
  10. House, J. (1981). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, 2nd ed., Tübingen, Narr. House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited, Tübingen, Narr. House, J. 1998). “Politeness and Translation,” The Pragmatics of Translation (L. Hickey, ed.), Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, 54-72.
  11. House, J. (2001). Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation, Meta, 46, 2, June, 243-257.
  12. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernments: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2/3): 223-248.
  13. Ji, S. J. (2000). 'Face' and polite verbal behaviors in Chinese culture’. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1059-1062.
  14. Kansu-Yetkiner, N. (2006).
  15. Blood, Shame and Fear: Self-Presentation Strategies of Turkish Women’s Talk about their Health and Sexuality. Doktora Tezi, Groningen Üniversitesi,
  16. Hollanda. Kasper, G. (1990). L