Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in the Translation of Political Speeches

Aladdin Al-Kharabsheh, Nadeen Hamadeh

Abstract


Discourse Markers (DMs) are central to maintaining cohesive and coherent translations. Drawing on Halliday and Hassan’s (1976) model to investigate the translation of DMs in political speeches, the study has verified the premise that tampering with the SLT's cohesion grid can adversely affect its relevant undergirding coherence grid. The study has revealed that any incurred cohesion shift in the act of translating would necessarily inscribe a parallel coherence shift, which fuse together to procure a noticeable translation loss. Analysis has isolated three major problems pertinent to translating English DMs into Arabic: (a) mistranslating explicit SL DMs, (b) no translation is given for implicit SL DMs, and (c) no translation is given for explicit SL DMs.

 


Keywords


discourse markers, cohesion shift, coherence shift, political speeches, explicit discourse markers, implicit discourse markers

Full Text:

PDF

References


Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A coursebook on translation. London/New York: Routledge.

Beaugrande, R.de & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London/New York: Longman.

Bell, R. (1991). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London:Longman.

Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridg: Cambridge University Press.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition in translation and second language acquisition studies (pp.17-35). Tübingen: Narr.

Blum-Kulka, S. (2000). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.) The translation studies reader (pp. 298-313). London & New York: Routledge.

Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 476-488.

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Dickins J. et al. (2002). Thinking Arabic translation. A course in translation method: Arabic to English. London & New York: Routledge.

Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. Language in Social Life Series. London/New York: Longman.

Hatim, B. and Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An advanced resource book. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hu, H. C. (1999). Cohesion and coherence in translation theory and pedagogy. Word, 50 (1), 33-46.

Halliday, M. (1994). Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

______________________(1995). Cohesion in English. English Language Series.London/New York: Longman.

Kostopoulou, G. (2007). The role of coherence in text approaching and comprehension: Applications in translation didactics". Meta, 52 (1), 146-155.

Neubert, A. and Shreve, G. (1992). Translation as text. Kent, Ohio, and London: The Kent University Press.

Papegaaij, B. and Schubert, K. (1988). Text coherence in translation. Dordrecht: Foris.

Rey, J. (1997). Discourse markers a challenge for natural language processing. AlCommunications, 10(3- 4), 177- 184.

Rouchota, V. (1996). Discourse connectives: What do they link? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 8 (199- 214), pp. 1- 15.

Sanders, R. E. (1987). Cognitive foundations of calculated speech. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sun, W. (2013). The importance of discourse markers in English learning and teaching. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(11), 2136- 2140.

Tafish, R. and Tahaineh, Y. (2011). Pitfalls encountered by bilingual Arab learners in translating the Arabic discourse marker 'θumma' into English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1 (3), 226-238.

Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Van Dijk, T. (1995). On macrostructures, mental models, and other inventions: A brief personal history of the Kintsch-Van Dijk theory." In C. Weaver, S. Mannes and C. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 383-410). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Vehmas-Lehto, I. (1991). Cohesion flaws in translations. In S. Tirkonen-Condit (Ed.), Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies (pp. 171-181). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Ventola, E. (1997). "Thematic development and translation. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Thematic development in English texts (pp. 85-104). London and New York: Pinter.

Walrod, M. (2006). The marker is the message: The influence of discourse markers and particles on textual meaning. Paper presented at the tenth international conference on Austronesian linguistics. 17- 20 January 2006. Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines. Retrieved from: http://www.sil.org/asia/phlippines/ical/papers.html.

Weissberg, R. C. (1984). Given and new: Paragraph development models from scientific English. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3), 485-500.

Yehia, T. (2015). Use of discourse markers: A case study of English writing by Yemeni students. Language in India, 15 (6), 217- 235.

Varela Pérez, J.R. (1999). Theme, cohesion devices and translation. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 7, 163-176.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.3p.100

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.