BASIC LINGUISTIC TERMS USED IN UNIT 7
| assertions (statements) | твердження, повідомлення |
| communicative aim | мета комунікації (спілкування) |
| fictional texts | художні тексти |
| fictional worlds | "художні свгги" (cвіти творчої вигадкн письменника) |
| imagery | образність, художні образи |
| non-fictional texts | нехудожні тексти |
| world | "cвіт" (все те, що включае особисте "я" людини, а також тс, що лежить за межами особистого "я") |
UNIT 8
ANALYSIS AIMED AT IDENTIFICATION OF GENDER MARKERS
OF «FEMALE» OR «MALE» LANGUGE IN TEXT AND ITS IM PORTANCE FOR TRANSLATION
Main points:
8.1 Gender bias in languages: linguistic and sociolinguistic approaches
8.2 Ways of expressing the category of gender in English and Ukrainian
8.3 Linguistic features of the "male" and "female" languages
8.4 Implications of gender-oriented text analysis for translators
***************************************************************
Gender bias in languages: linguistic and sociolinguistic approaches
Researchers in sociolinguistics argue that men and women seem to differ in terms of their communicative competence or, in other words, in their knowledge of how to use language in the society, in what they think is appropriate for them as speakers. Sex differences in communicative competence make up a part of a particular culture [see Мартынюк, Башкирева 1994; Coats 1986: 97, Lakoff 1975; Wardhaugh 1992:312].
Linguists believe that languages differ in the ways of rendering gender bias, however most studies claim that women and men typically employ different linguistic "styles" of speech. English, in particular, in treated as the "masculine-biased" language [see Cheshire 1985: 22], there exist female and male "styles" in Japanese, however there is not much data collected about Ukrainian and Russian.
Ways of expressing the category of gender in English and Ukrainian
It is hardly possible to explain on what logical grounds nouns are attached to different genders. Hypothetically distinction was made between objects belonging to men and those belonging to women, between living and lifeless objects.
|
|
|
In modern English there are practically no purely grammatical gender markers and nouns are traditionally divided into three classes mainly by their lexical meaning:
masculine (mask.) - names of male beings: father, boy, brother, son;
feminine (fem.) - names of female beings: girl, woman, mother, sister;
neuter (neut.) - names of lifeless things: mountain, house, table, car.
Therefore in most cases gender in English is expressed lexically (man woman, boy - girl, king - queen). However in a limited number ol cases it may also be expressed morphologically (by adding the feminine gender forming suffix -ess: hostess, actress, lioness, tigress) and by lexical and syntactical means (woman-doctor, girl-cashier, hen-pigeon, she-goat, he-bear).
In flexional Ukrainian and Russian languages three genders are among the basic morphological features of nouns distinguishing them from other parts of speech. In addition in Ukrainian there is also a common gender, which may apply both to male and female beings, e.g.: нероба, бідолаха, нікчема, сіромаха. It is for some historical reasons that most of these words have feminine gender forming suffix -a, while some other Ukrainian words with this suffix, e.g.: cyciдa, собака, are associated with the masculine gender (він), and words like людина, дитина, тварина with the feminine (вона). It is quite remarkable that here Ukrainian does not have direct parallels with Russian where сосед, ребенок, человек are masculine собака is femine and животное is neuter. Do these observations give grounds to claim that Ukrainian due to its historical development which roots back to the matriarchal Trypillya culture (4 millennium B.C.) is rather feminine than masculine biased language? Only further research may shed light on this problem.
On the other hand, in languages there are a lot of "gender-biased" ("sexist") words (not only nouns), which contain either masculine or feminine bias in their semaitics. Compare:
| masculine bias | feminine bias | neutral |
| chairman salesman actor reader aggressive brutal handsome strong brave rude | air hostess beautiful shy weep gossip kind chatting complaining tender caring | chair, chairperson flight attendant resource person assistant homemaker |
|
|
|
8.3. Linguistic features of the "male" and "female" languages
Researchers in sociolingustics believe that men and women use certain linguistic patterns which are typical of the "men's style" and "women's" style of language. This assumption has lead some authors to distinguishing between "powerful" (men's) and "powerless" (women's) language [see Coats 1986; O'Barr 1982; Lakoff 1975]. Thus J.Coats in her sociolinguistic research called "Women, Men and Language" [Coats 1986] refers to the results obtained by W.M. O'Barr and O.K. Atkins who in the early 1980- s while studying "courtroom language" observed that manuals for lawyers on tactics in court often treated female witnesses as a special case. This fact led W.M. O'Barr and D.K. Atkins to wonder if female witnesses differed linguistically from male witnesses. They analysed transcripts of 150 hours of trials in a North Carolina (USA) superior criminal court, looking at features which they call "women's language" (or "female gender markers") and which are described below [see Coats 1986: 112-113; O'Barr op.cit.; O'Barr, Atkins 1980]. These features are:
1. The use of "hedges" or "parenthesis", e.g.: sort of; I guess, kind of; you know; well; you see, etc.
2. Excessive use of super-polite forms of expression, e.g.: would you please; I'd really appreciate it if you would do something; would you be so kind and do something;
3. The use of "tag questions", e.g.: The crisis in Kosovo is terrible, isn't it?; But you can switch on the light, can you ?
4. Speaking "in italics" (ніби-то виділяючи певні слова курсивом), i.e. the use of emphatic so or very which is equivalent to underlining words in written language, e.g.: This is a very important subject. This problem is of so much importance. Speaking "in italics" is often followed by the sudden rise in intonation pitch: It took a long time to understand why people were so interested in me.
|
|
|
5. The use of the "empty" adjectives or adverbs, such as divine; daunting; charming; sweet; adorable; tremendous; significant; phenomenal; desperate; desperately, etc.
6. Hypercorrect grammar and pronunciation.
7. Lack of a sense of humour which means that women are usually poor at telling jokes comparing to men.
8. Direct quotations, e.g.: I asked him: " Why did you come home so late?" and he said: "I was in the pub having some beer with my friends"; I said to my husband: "What do I do now?" and he said: "Go to the other side and speak to them ".
9. Special vocabulary, e.g. the use of diminutive forms or specialised colour terms, e.g. piglet; kitty; chubby; sweetheart; honey: The Queen wore a yellow dress and a green hat; He was in a dark blue suit etc.
10. Question intonation in declarative contexts, which may cause a problem for interpreters desperately trying to figure out whether what was said should be regarded as a statement or as a question.
Based upon these assumptions, W.M. O'Barr and B.K. Atkins [1980] argue that in the following example phrase two (2) is an instance of speech with high features of women's language:
(1)Lawyer: What was the nature of your acquaintance with Mrs. E.D.?
(2) Witness: Well we were, uh. very close friends. Uh, she was even sort оf like a mother to me.
On the basis of their analysis W.M. O'Barr and B.K. Atkins claim that the linguistic features associated with "powerless language" appear because in modern societies women are usually less powerful than men, which is rather the result of their social position than their sex. It is obvious that these differences in the way men and women talk must be considered in the process of translation.
8.4. Implications of gender-oriented text analysis for translators
Failure to render the gender markers may lead on the one hand to serious distortions in translation and on the other hand ability to render such markers largely depends upon the cultural (communicative) competence of the translator (interpreter). A classic example of the "gender marked" text is E.Hemingway's story "Cat in the Rain" where the American wife (called also the American girl) is associated in her loneliness with the cat hiding in the rain [See Кухаренко 1987; Пелевина 1980]. The gender of the cat is marked as feminine in the English original text (The cat was trying to make herself so compact that she would not be dripped on; "I want to have a kitty to sit on my lap and purr when 1 stroke her"). In the Ukrainian and Russian translations the cat is also marked as feminine (кішка, киця, вона; кошка, киска, она), which reflects the idea of the author.
|
|
|
In the final episode of the story the maid of the hotel "held a big tortoise-shell cat pressed tight against her and swung down against her body (definitely a different cat comparing to the one wanted by the "American wife"). "Excuse me", she said "the padrone asked me to bring this for the Signora". Comparison of the Ukrainian and Russian translations of this episode explicitly shows that the Ukrainian translation is more "feminine biased" than the Russian one and, perhaps, may be treated as formal distortion but, on the other hand, it is closer to the original idea of Hemingway:
| Ukrainian translation | Russian translation |
| Ha nopoзi стояла покоївка. Вона міцно притискала до себе велику плямисту кішку, шо звисала в неї з рук. - Пробачте, - сказала вона. - Padrone звелів віднести її синьорі. | В дверях стояла служанка. Она крепко прижимала к себе большую пятнистую кошку, которая тяжело свешивалась у нее на руках. - Простите, - сказала она. - Padrone посылает это синьоре. |
Another specific feature of this text is that the social status of the female character is being lowered throughout the story from the American wife to the American girl and just his wife. She "is getting younger" by the end of the story which is aimed at putting her into a "powerless position" comparing to her husband who, on the contrary, acquires a "powerful" role: he is the husband (only once he is called "her husband") and has the name (George), he pronounces "authoritative" statements and requests and even uses rude language Oh, shut up and get something to read. However Ukrainian and Russian translations of the story do not fully reflect the above-mentioned lowering of the social status of the woman as well as the fact that she is "getting younger" and unprotected by the end of the story. In translation she just remains either американка or вона, which tells the reader nothing about her dependence upon her husband.
| English original | Ukrainian translation | Russian translation |
| American wife | американка | американка |
| the wife | американка | американка |
| She | вона | она |
| American girl | молода американка | молодая американка; американка |
| the girl | вона | она |
| his wife | його дружина | американка,она |
These facts show that "gender biases" as well as linguistic "gender markers" really exist in languages, they are rather strong tools in terms of producing certain communicative effect upon the reader or listener and, therefore, have to be carefully analysed and considered in the process of translation.
SEMINAR 8
Questions for discussion and practical assignments:
1. What do linguists associate with the notion of gender bias in languages? Comment upon linguistic and sociolinguistic approaches to this issue.
2. Comment on the ways of expressing the category of gender in English and Ukrainian.
3. What are the main linguistic features of the female languages that have to be considered by translators?
4. What are the reasons to distinguish between the “powerful” and “powerless” language?
5. Comment upon the implications of gender-oriented text analysis for translation.
6. Prepare the “gender oriented” analysis (according to the principles outlined in Unit 8) of the interview with Lady Diana Spencer (BBC World, 20 November 1995), which is given below and translate the interview into Ukrainian:
Q.: Your Royal Highness, how prepared were you for the pressures that came with marrying into the Royal Family?
Answer: At the age of 19, you always think you're prepared for everything, and you think you have the knowledge of what's coming ahead. But although I was daunted at the prospect at the time, I felt I had the support of my husband-to-be.
Q.: What were the expectations that you had for married life?
A.: I think like any marriage, specially when you've had divorced parents like myself, you'd want to try even harder to make it work and you don't want to fall back into a pattern that you've seen happen in your own family.
I desperately wanted it to work, I desperately loved my husband and I wanted to share everything together, and I thought that we were a very good team.
Q.: How aware were you of the significance of what had happened to you? After all you had become Princess of Wales, ultimately with a view to becoming Queen.
A.: I wasn't daunted and I'm not daunted by the responsibilities that role creates. It was a challenge, it is a challenge. As for becoming Queen, it was never at the forefront of my mind when I married my husband. "It was a long way off', I thought. The most daunting aspect was the media attention, because my husband and I, we were told when we got engaged, that the media - they'd go quietly, and they didn't. And then when we were married, they said: "We'd go quietly". And they didn't. And then they started to focus very much on me. And I seemed to be on the front of newspapers every single day, which is isolating experience. And higher the media put you, place you, is the bigger the drop. And I was very aware of that.
Q.: How did you handle the transition from being Lady Diana Spencer to the most photographed, the most talked about woman in the world?
A.: It took a long time to understand why people were so interested in me. But I assume it was because my husband had done a lot of wonderful work eating up to our marriage and our relationship. But then during the years you see yourself as a good product that sits on the shelf and sells well. And people make a lot of money out of you.
Q.: It's been suggested in some newspapers that you were left largely to cope with your new status on your own. Do you feel that was your experience?
A.: Yes, I do. On reflection. But then here was a situation, which had never happened before in history, in a sense that the media were everywhere and here's a fairy story that everybody wanted to work. And so it was isolating but it was also a situation where you couldn't indulge in feeling sorry for yourself. You had to either sink or swim. And you had to learn that very fast.
Q.: And what did you do?
A.: I swam. We went to Alice Springs to Australia. We (...) did a walk about and I said to my husband, "What do I do now?" And he said, "Go to the other side and speak to them". I said, "I can't". - "Disguise what you've got to do!" And he went off and did his bit, and I went off and did my bit. And we apparently finished off and then I suddenly realised when I went back tо my hotel room, I realised the impact that, you know, I had to sort myself out. We had six weeks tour - four weeks in Australia and two weeks in New Zealand, and by the end, when I flew back from New Zealand, I was a different person- I realised the sense of duty, the level of intensity of interests and the demanding role I now found myself in.
Q.: Were vou overwhelmed by the pressure from people initially?
A.: Yes, I was very daunted because, as far as I was concerned, 1 was a fat chubby, 20 years old, 21 years old, and I could not understand the law of interest.
Q.: At this early stage would you say that you were happily married?
A.: Very much so. Plus, the pressure on us both as a couple with the media was phenomenal and misunderstood by great many people. We'd be going round Australia, for instance, and all you could hear was, "Oh. she's on the other side". Now, if you are a man like my husband, proud man, you mind about that, you hear it every day for weeks, and you feel low about it instead of feeling happy and sharing it.
Q.: When you say "She's on the other side", what do you mean?
A.: Well, they went on the right side to wave for me or to touch me.
Q.: So they were expressing a preference even then for you rather then for your husband?
A.: Yes, which I thought was very uncomfortable, and I thought it was rather unfair, as I wanted to share.
Q.: But were you flattered by the media attention particularly?
A.: No, not particularly, because with the media attention came a lot of jealousy, a great deal of complicated situations arose because of that.
Q.: At this early stage in your marriage what role did you see for yourself as Princess of Wales? Did you have an idea of the role you might "like to fulfil?
A.: No, I was very confused by (...) which area I should go into. Than 1 found myself being more and more involved with people who were rejected by society, I'd say, drug addicts, alcoholism, battered this, battered that, and I found an affinity there. And I respected very much the honesty I found on that level of people I met, because in hospices, for instance, when people are dying, they're much more open and more vulnerable and much more real, than other people. And I appreciated that.
Q.: Had the Palace given any thought to the role that you might have as Princess of Wales?
A.: No, no one sat me down with a piece of paper and said: "This is what is expected of you". But then again I'm lucky enough of the fact that I have found my role and I am very conscious of it. And I love being with people.
Q.: So you very much created the role that you would perceive for yourself, really? That's what you did?
A.: Yes, I think so. I remember when I sat on hospital beds and held people's hands, people used to be in sort of shock, because they had never seen this before. And to me it was quite a normal thing to do and when 1 saw the reassurance that an action like that gave, I did it everywhere and will always do that.
BBC World
LITERATURE
1. Кухаренко B.A. Практикум пo интерпретации текста / B.A. Кухаренко. - M.: Просвещение, 1987.
2. Мартынюк А.П., Башкирева С.А. Синтаксические аспекты половой дифференциации речи в современном английском языке // Теоретичні та прикладні аспекти комунікативної діяльності / Вісник Харківського університету, № 382,1994 / А.П. Мартинюк, С.А. Башкирева. - С. 67-70.
3. Пелевина Н.Ф. Стилистический анализ художественного текста / Н.Ф. Пелевина. -Ленинград: Просвещение, 1980.
4. Cheshire J. A question of masculine bias // English today / J. Cheshire, N1,1985. - P. 22-26.
5. Coats J. Women, men and language / J. Coats. - London: Longman, 1986.
6. Lakoff R. Language in women's place / R. Lakoff. - N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1975.
7. O'Barr W.M., Atkins B.K. "Women's language" or "powerless language" // Women and language in literature and Society / W.M. O'Barr, B.K. Atkins. - N.Y.: Praeger, 1980. - P. 93-100.
8. O'Barr W. Linguistic evidence: Language, power and strategy in the courtroom / W. O'Barr. - N.Y., London: Academic Press, 1982.
9. Wardhaugh R. An introduction to sociolinguistics / R. Wardhaugh. - Oxford, etc.: Blackwell, 1992.
Дата добавления: 2018-08-06; просмотров: 674; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!