BASIC LINGUISTIC TERMS USED IN UNIT 1
| artefact (texts) | артефакт, тексти-артефакти (тексти, що “змінюють” або відображують реальний світ) |
| cohesive | звя’зний |
| coherence | когерентність (цілісність) |
| cohesion | когезія (звя’зність) |
| deictic | дейктичний |
| deixis | дейксис (від грецького “deixis” - “указания”) - орієнтація висловлювання у вимірі часу, простору та особи. |
| discourse | дискурс |
| levels of linguistic structure | рівні мовної структури |
| mentatact (texts) | ментафакт, тексти-ментафакти (художні текcти, що відображують вигаданий автором світ) |
| performative (verbs) | перформатив (перформативне дієслово) |
| semiotics | семіотика (наука про знаки) |
UNIT 2
LEXICAL AND SEMANTIC MEANS OF COHESION IN TEXT
Main points:
2.1 Repetition as lexical and semantic means of cohesion in text
2.2 Main types of repetition links in text
***************************************************************
2.1. Repetition as lexical and semantic means of cohesion in text
We have identified text as a piece of continuous language that is available for comprehension, linguistic analysis and, therefore, for interpretation and translation. It may be written or spoken and have one author or several. It is constructed in accordance with a certain structural model and has its semantic centre (*nucleus, thematic kernel) and a communicative goal.
Cohesionwas defined as one of the main properties of text whereby certain grammatical or lexical features of the sentences connect them to other sentences in the text.
Grammatical cohesion plays an important role in linking together the contents of texts by various grammatical means, such as conjunctions, prepositions, rules of the sequences of tenses, relationships of coordination and subordination established between clauses of composite sentences, etc. Thus, it greatly contributes to comprehending texts as “pieces of continuous language” [Гальперин 1981: 73-86]. However, grammatical structures appear to be very much redundant and usually present no major difficulties for text interpretation and translation.
|
|
|
Therefore, it is assumed by many authors [Halliday and Hasan 1976; Hoey 1991] that lexical cohesion appears to be the most significant kind of cohesion in texts, especially for the purposes of comprehension, interpretation and translation.
Lexical cohesion (or, to be more precise, lexical and semantic cohesion) is implemented through repetition, which is defined as the occurrence of one or more lexical items (words or word combinations) in a sentence that by themselves tell the reader or listener nothing new but reinstate some elements from earlier sentences so that something new can be said about them. In other words, repetition serves to show the relatedness of sentences in much the same way that bibliographical reference in academic papers shows the relatedness of scientific papers (articles, books and monographs written by various authors and referring to the academic subject in question).
Main types of lexical repetition links in texts
There are the following main types of repetition observed in texts [see Hoey 1991:51-78,83]:
1. Simple lexical repetition occurs when a lexical item that has already occurred in the text is repeated with no greater alteration than can be explained in terms of a grammatical paradigm (e.g., singular vs. plural form; present vs. past; first pefcon singular vs. third person singular; active voice vs. passive voice, etc.), e.g.: bear - bears; scientist - scientists; eat - ate; he - him; go –goes; стіл - столи; журнал - журналу; читаю - читав; він - його, etc.).
Only lexical words can enter into such a link. We will not treat as simple lexical repetition connections between grammatical words such as articles, prepositions, conjunctions, auxiliaries, negatives and particles.
2. Complex lexical repetition occurs when two lexical items share a lexical morpheme, but are not formally identical, or when they are formally identical, but belong to different parts of speech (or, rather, have different grammatical functions), e.g.: drug - drugging; a table - to table; politics - political; academy - academic; to travel - travelling - traveller; hero - heroism; книга - книжковий; сіль - солоний; їжа - їсти; мужність - мужній, etc.). Certain antonyms that share a common lexical morpheme also make up complex lexical repetition patterns, e.g.: happy - unhappy; audible - inaudible; contented - discontented; adequate - inadequate, etc. [Hoey 1991:64].
|
|
|
3. Simple paraphrase occurs whenever a lexical item may substitute another item in context with no important change in meaning. Here belong most of the contextual synonyms, e.g.: produce - cause; statesman- politician; book - volume; works - writings; sedate - tranquillize; present - gift; sleep - dream; робота - праця; особа - людина; викликати - спричиняти, etc.
4. Complex paraphrase occurs when one of the lexical items includes the other, although they may share no lexical morpheme. Here, first of all belong certain antonyms that share no lexical morpheme, e.g.: happy - sad; hot - cold; dry -wet; true - false; old - young; день - ніч; гарно - погано; стояти - лежати, etc.
Secondly, complex paraphrase occurs when one item is a complex lexical repetition of another item (e.g.: writer - writings) and also a simple paraphrase of a third item (e.g.: writer - author). In this case complex paraphrase link is established between the second and the third items (writings - author). This semantic phenomenon is called “a link triangle” [Hoey 1991:64- 65] and may be graphically represented by the following figure:
complex repetition
writer writings
complex paraphrase
simple paraphrase (as consequence of the
other links)
author
5. Co-reference repetition occurs when two items are interpreted as having the same referent (i.e., when two words refer to the same object of the real world in the given context), e.g.: my computer - machine; Mr. Tony Blair - British Prime Minister (in the context of 2006); Calligula - the Emperor (in the content of the ancient Rome); William Blake -poet; Тарас Шевченко - Кобзар, etc.
|
|
|
6. Substitution links occur when certain grammatical words such as, first of all, pronouns, (e.g.: he, she, it, they, this, that, these, those, the first one, another one, the same, etc.) substitute lexical items, e.g.: bears - they, a cat - it; Mr. Blair - he; жінка - вона; явище - воно; собака - він, etc.
There are also other, additional types of repetition, such as superordinate, hyponymy, repetition due to ellipsis and deixis (Hoey 1991: 69-75, 87). However, these types of repetition seem to be of less importance for text analysis in translation.
SEMINAR 2
Questions for discussion and practical assignments:
1. Why lexical cohesion is viewed by most authors as more important for the interpretation of texts comparing to grammatical cohesion?
2. Which of the following definitions is the most appropriate to describe a coherent text:
· “A coherent text is a text which is perceived as “the whole”;
· “A coherent text is a connected text ”;
· “A coherent text is a complete text".
3. Give definitions and examples of your own (English and Ukrainian) of the following types of repetition:
· simple lexical repetition;
· omplex lexical repetition;
· simple paraphrase;
· complex paraphrase;
· co-reference repetition;
· substitution.
4. Detect and establish types of repetition links between sentences in the texts given below. Suggest variants of translation of these texts:
Text 1.
The rate of population growth
These advances are causing the world’s population to double at much faster rate than ever before. In the year 1000, the human population grew at a rate so slow that - had it continued - the world population would not have doubled for 575 years. By 1825, the doubling time had decreased to about 100 years. Today, the world’s population is doubling in 35 or 40 years.
For Earth as a whole, the rate of population growth in 1991 was 1.7 per cent. This means that the population at the end of the year was 1.7 per cent larger than at the beginning.
|
|
|
But the growth rate varied greatly from country to country. In the richer, industrial nations - such as the United States, Canada, Japan and the countries of Western Europe - population growth averaged 0.5 per cent. Germany and Hungary had rates that were slightly less than zero, meaning that their populations were declining. In the developing nations, however, population growth was higher, averaging 2.1 per cent. The highest growth rates occurred in Africa and in Arab states on the Persian Gulf. The populations in Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, and Uganda grew by 3.7 to 3.8 per cent, as did those of Ivory Coast, Saudi Arabia and Oman.
Although such percentages may seem insignificant, the difference between a worldwide 1 per cent rate of growth and a 3 per cent rate is the difference between adding 54 million people and adding 200 million people to Earth each year. A sustained worldwide growth rate of 3.7 per cent, for example, would cause Earth’s population to double in only 20 years.
Science Year
Text 2.
White-collar job seekers to face criminal checks
Thousands of professional job seekers, from bankers and pharmacists to solicitors and dentists, will be subject for the first time to full checks on whether they have a criminal past under plans announced by the Government yesterday.
Employers will also be able to require potential recruits to supply a criminal conviction certificate, giving details of recent or serious offences. It will be provided, for a fee of about J20, by a new Criminal Records Agency due to start in 1998. The sweeping extension of powers to vet job applicants was described by Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, as striking, a balance between the rights of individuals to live down their past crimes and the need to safeguard the vulnerable.
But the White Paper proposals were fiercely criticised by penal reformers and civil liberties groups as too wide-ranging and likely to damage the rehabilitation of offenders.
The Daily Telegraph
Text 3.
Київська Русь
Міста Київської Русі. Осередки, де сформувалася висока середньовічна культура, яка посіла гідне місце в світовій цивілізації. З письмових джерел того часу відомо, що Київська Русь мала головний державний центр - столицю - місто Київ, міські центри, державні кордони.
За русько-візантійським договором дев’ятсот сьомого року, укладеним після походу руських військ на чолі з князем Олегом на Константинополь, Візантія мусила платити данину таким містам, як Київ, Чернігів, Переяслав, Полоцьк, Ростов і Любеч. Отже, кількість міст на початку X століття була досить велика. Недарма в давньо-скандинавських сагах Русь іменувалась “Гардарики” або “Гарди”, тобто - країна міст.
Давньоруські літописи згадують понад чотириста міст, археологічними дослідженнями на території Русі виявлено близько півтори тисячі городиш, серед яких більшість була справжніми містами.
Літописи називають їх “градами”. Отже, за етимологією. утворення міста пов’язане із влаштуванням огородженої території.
Найдосконалішою і наймогутнішою системою оборонних споруд був обнесений стародавній Київ.
У системі оборонних споруд міст Київської Русі було, як правило, кілька в’їзних воріт, які зв’язували місто з навколишнім світом. У Києві головними були Золоті ворота, які правили за парадний в’їзд до міста. В часи князювання Ярослава Мудрого вони мали вигляд цегляної башти з проїздом посередині, а над баштою піднімалася надворотна церква.
М. Сагайдак
LITERATURE
1. Гальперин И.Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования/ И.Р. Гальперин . -М.: Наука. 1981.- 139 с.
2. Halliday M.A.K. and Hasan R. Cohesion in English/ M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan. - London: Longman, 1986.
3. Hoey M. Patterns of Lexis in Text/ M. Hoey. - Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 1991. - 276 p.
BASIC LINGUISTIC TERMS USED IN UNIT 2
| complex paraphrase | складна парафраза |
| complex lexical repetition | складне лексичне повторення |
| item | лексична одиниця (слово або словосполучення) |
| co-reference repetition | кореферентне повторення, кореференція |
| repetition link | повторення (сполучення між реченнями , яке утворено шляхом лексико-семантичного повторення слів) |
| substitution | субституція, заміщення |
| simple lexical repetition | просте лексичне повторення |
| simple paraphrase | проста парафраза |
UNIT 3
IDENTIFICATION OF REPETITION LINKS AND CREATION OF A NET OF BONDS IN THE TEXT
Main points:
3.1. Identification of repetition links and the notion of bonds
3.2. Principles of construction of a repetition pattern
3.3. An example of text analysis
3.4. Interpretation of the repetition patterning: central and marginal sentences
3.5. Making summary of a text
3.6. Practical implications of the described methodology for translators ***************************************************************
3.1. Identification of repetition links and the notion of bonds
For the purposes of our further analysis we will have to observe the following rules of treatment repetition links [see: Hoey 1991:76-99]:
If an item (a word or a word combination) repeats two items in another sentence, then only one link is registered; if a sentence contains two items (words), both of which repeat an earlier item, again one link is registered.
Repetition links internal to one sentence are not registered.
Three links will be regarded to make a sufficient connection between two sentences, which we will call a bond.
3.2. Principles of construction of a repetition pattern
So lexical items (words) form links and sentences sharing three or more links form bonds. M.IHoey [1991: 91] writes that “a bond is not however, defined in terms of an absolute number of links. Bonds will never be deemed to exist where there are less then three links [ ...] but for some texts three links may not be sufficient”.
However, for the purposes of our analysis we will establish three lexical links as a sufficient connection to make a bond, in other words, any two sentences are connected as packages of information if they share at least three points of reference. The reason for this is practical: if less than three repetitions are treated as establishing a significant connection, then virtually every sentence will he connected to virtually every other sentence, and that is not going to tell us anything interesting about the function of cohesion except that it is pervasive [Hoey 1991:361].
3.3. An example of text analysis
For the purposes of our analysis we will take a short piece of popular non-fictional text to illustrate our assumptions. We begin by considering the repetition links that sentence 1 shares with sentences 2,3,4 and 5.
DRUG-CRAZED GRIZZLIES
1. A drug known to produce violent reactions in humanshas been used for sedating grizzly bears Ursus arctos in Montana, USA, according to a report in the New York Times.
2. After one bear, known to be a peaceful animal, killed and ate a camper in an unprovoked attack, scientists discovered it had been tranquillized 11 times with phencyclidine, or ‘angel dust’, which causes hallucinations and sometimes gives the user an irritation feeling of destructive power.
3. Many wild bears become “garbage junkies”, feeding from dumps around human developments.
4. To avoid potentially dangerous clashes between them and humans, scientist are trying to rehabilitate the animals by drugging them and releasing them in uninhabited areas.
5. Although some biologists deny that the mind-altering drug was responsible for uncharacteristic behaviour of this particular bear, no research has been done into the effects of giving grizzly bears or other mammals repeated doses of phencyclidine.
BBC Wildlife, March 1984, Vol.2, №3
3.3.1. The repetition links: sentence 1
Sentence 1 has four links with sentence 2 and four with sentence 5; it has three links with sentence 4 and two with sentence 3. In accordance with our decision to take three links as the minimum necessary to establish a connection between sentences, we may say that there are bondsbetween sentence 1 and sentences 2, 4 and 5 but not with sentence 3. Although “known to” appears both in sentences 1 and 2, the two instances are not treated as repetition because the context within which they appear has nothing to do with the topic of the text. Therefore, the following diagram may represent our analysis:
(1)
(2)
(3) (4)
(5)
3.3.2. The repetition links: sentence 2
2. After one bear, known to be a peaceable animal, killed and ate a camper in an unprovoked attack, scientists discovered it had been tranquillized 11 times wth phencyclidine, or “angel dusts” which causes hallucanations and sometimes gives the user an irrational feeling of destructive power.
3. Маnу wild bears have become “garbage junkies” feeding from dumps around human developments.
4. To avoid potentially dangerous clashes between them and humans, scientists are trying to rehabilitate the animals by drugging them and releasing them in uninhabited areas.
5. Although some biologists deny that the mind-altering drugwas responsible for uncharacteristic behaviour of this particular bear, no research has been done into the effects of giving grizzly bears or other mammals repeated doses of phencyclidine.
In this portion of text, sentence 2 is connected by three or more repetition links to sentences 4 and 5,in addition to its connection to sentence 1. Again there is insufficient repetition with sentence 3 to establish a bond.
Therefore, we can represent bonds of sentence 2 by the following diagram:
(1)
(2) (3)
(4)
(5)
Дата добавления: 2018-08-06; просмотров: 1685; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!