本文是英语论文,In addition, the author analyzes the corresponding interpreting strategies for each category of explicitation. First of all, structural default values refer to the ones that must be manifested in the interpreting in order to conform to the grammatical norms of the target language. It can be subdivided into semantic role default value, idiomatic default values and logical default value. We can use the following interpreting strategies to make the structural defaults explicit. First, we can add frame components to activate the corresponding frame of the target audience. Second, we can also find the same or similar sentence structure in the two languages to achieve the frame equivalence. Finally, we can also use the frameperspective replacement strategy to activate the frame of the target audience. Secondly, contextual default value can be subdivided into cultural default values and situational default values. The differences in contextual frame are mainly reflected in the number of frame components between the two contextual frames. Therefore, we can adopt the frame component addition strategy and the frame component deletion strategy to activate the same cognitive frame of the two languages. In addition, the more concrete the lower-level frame is, the more cultural individuality it has, and the more abstract the upper-level frame is, the more cultural commonality it has or the more cognitive universality it has. If a frame in the source language cannot find a corresponding frame in the target language, we should adopt a strategy of frame level adjustment to search for a more abstract and more culturallcommon frame upwards to better convey meaning to the target audience. We can also adopt a frame relationship adjustment strategy to directly abandon metonymy or metaphorical relationships to achieve the goal of frame equivalence. Finally, we can adopt the following two interpreting strategies when the category of interpreting explicitation belongs to semantic default value. On the one hand, we can use the frame component addition strategy to make the semantic default values explicit.
Chapter One Introduction
Due to great differences in language and social cultures between Chinese and English, interpreters often need to adopt explicit strategies to express implied information behind the linguistic signs in Chinese. In this case, the phenomenon of explicitation appears. Many scholars have put forward their own views on the definition of explicitation. Vinay and Darbelnet (1995, p. 342) hold that explicitation refers to “a translation strategy that translators infer the implied information from the context or situation and express it clearly in the target language”. But this definition does not explain what the implied information is. Therefore, their definition on explicitation is vague. Blum-Kulka (1986, pp. 17-35) studies explicitation in a systematic way and puts forward the view of explicitation hypothesis. However, Blum Kulka’s definition of explicitation only refers to the change in the degree of explicitation of cohesion in translation. That is why Séguinot (1988, pp. 106-114) thinks Blum-Kulka’s view on explicitation is too narrow. Séguinot (1988) believes that explicitation does not always mean redundancy and the explicitation should be divided into the explicitation caused by the difference of the language system and by the translation itself. Although Séguinot extends the explicitation beyond the language level, her definition on explicitation is too broad. Klaudy (2003) gives a more detailed and accurate definition of explicitation. In his opinion, the definition of explicitation includes the following four aspects. Firstly, the broad semantic meanings in the source language are replaced by more precise meanings in the target language. Secondly, a word which has a broad connotation in the source language becomes a few words in the target language. Thirdly, a sentence in the source language is divided into many sentences in the target language. Fourthly, the words in source language become clauses in the target language. He (2003, pp. 64-65) believes that as long as the meaning of the words and sentences in the target language is clearer and more concrete than the source language and the logical relationship is clearer than the source language, these are regarded as explicitation”. Ke (2005, p. 306) also believes that explicitation should include the conversion of meaning. Wang (2006, p. 208) argues that “the increase in word number caused by linguistic differences could not be regarded as explicitation”. It is clear that the definition of He (2003), Ke (2005) and Wang (2006) on explicitation is closer to Séguinot’s. As stated previously, explicitation can be defined as the process in which the implied meaning is expressed in the target language so that the meaning of the translated text is clearer and more logical than that of the source text.
Chapter Two Literature Review
This chapter reviews the previous studies on explicitation. By reading the relevant literature, we can see that the studies on the previous scholars on the explicitation mainly focus on four aspects: definitions of explicitation, categories of explicitation, motivations of explicitation and strategies of explicitation.
2.2Previous Studies on Explicitation
The definition of explicitation is first proposed by French scholars Vinay and Darbelnet in their book Comparative Stylistics of French and English. Vinay and Darbelnet (1995, p. 342) hold that“expliciation refers to a process that translators infer the implied information from the context or situation and express it clearly in the target language”. But this definition does not explain what implied information is. Therefore, their definition of explicitation is vague. Based on the theory of linguistics, Blum-Kulka first systematically studies and proposes the view of explicitation hypothesis. Blum-Kulka (1986, pp. 17-35) believes that the translator’s interpretation of the source text may lead to the translation being longer than the source text,which is reflected in the improvement of the dominance of the cohesion level of the translation. The differences between the two languages are reflected in the differences of cohesive methods, which may be due to grammatical differences. For example, French words are negative and positive, while English words are not. In addition, this difference may be due to language preferences. For instance, Hebrew prefers to use lexical repetition to express something, while English prefers to use pronouns. Therefore, when translating, the translator should transform the cohesive means, and this conversion will affect the degree of explicitation of the translated discourse. It must be pointed out that Blum Kulka’s definition of explicitation only refers to the change in the degree of explicitation of cohesion in translation. Therefore, Séguinot (1988) thinks Blum-Kulka’s view on explicitation is too narrow. She argues thatexplicitation does not always mean redundancy. In addition, she also questions that the explicit case given by Blum-Kulka can be explained by the differences between English and French. Therefore, she believes that the explicitation should be divided into the explicitation caused by the differences of the language system and by the translation itself. She also holds that explicitation is an increase in the text that cannot be explained by differences in structure, style, or rhetoric between the two languages. Although Séguinot extends the explicitation beyond the language level, its explicit definition is too broad. Klaudy (2003) defines explicitation very systematically. In his opinion, the definition of explicitation includes the following four aspects. Firstly, he holds that the process of explicitation is that the broad semantic meanings in the source language are replaced by more precise meanings in the target language. Secondly, a word which has a broad connotation in the source language becomes a few words in the target language. New sense group appears in the target language. Thirdly, a sentence in the source language is divided into many sentences in the target language. Fourthly, words in source language become clauses in target language. It is obvious that Klaudy gives a more detailed and accurate definition of explicitation.
Chapter Three Theoretical Framework .......................................................... 17
3.1 Introduction ............... 17
3.2 Frame Theory ............ 17 3.3 Summary ................... 25
Chapter Four Explicit Categories and Interpreting Strategies ..................... 26
4.1 Introduction ............... 26
4.2 Explicit Categories .... 26 Chapter Five Conclusion ........ 61
5.1 Major Findings .......... 61
5.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies ................................ 63
References ................................. 64
Chapter Four Explicit Categories and Interpreting Strategies
This chapter mainly discusses the explicit categories and interpreting strategies in Chinese-English consecutive interpreting. According to Chapter Three, we can clearly see that the essence of explicitation is to manifest the default values implied behind linguistic signs. Therefore, the division of explicit categories is actually the division of default values implied behind linguistic signs. The author adopts qualitative research to classify the explicitation as structural default values, contextual default values, and semantic default values. Different default values require different interpreting strategies. The author conducts a statistical analysis of each category of explicitation in the data and analyzes interpreting strategies of each category of explicitation by frame cognitive operation.
According to definition of explicitation in Chapter Two, the author totally identifies 976 explicitations in the interpreting of press conferences from 2016 to 2018. Referring to Klaudy’s study on the category of explicitation, from the perspective of frame theory, all the default values in data can be divided into three categories: structural default values, contextual default values and semantic default values. In the interpreting of press conferences in 2016, 2017 and 2018, the occurrence of these three categories of default values is as follows: From the Figure 4.1, we can see that from 2016 to 2018, the number of explicitation has increased year by year. It is clear that the number of structural default values is the most among the three categories of explicitation. Structural default values refer to the ones that must be manifested in the interpreting in order to conform to the grammatical norms of the target language. There are some differences in syntactic structure and semantics between Chinese and English. If the text is rigidly interpreted according to the source language, the grammar will not conform to the grammatical norms of the target language, which ultimately leads to the inability to convey the original meaning of the speaker. In the Chinese-English consecutive interpreting of Premier Li Keqiang’s press conference in 2016, 2017 and 2018, structural default values mainly include semantic role default values, idiomatic default values and logical default values. Shen (1999, pp. 5-6) believes that because of the role of psychological gestation, people as cognitive subjects often classify the reality into a cognitive frame of “the performer of the action in a sentence -action- the object of the action in a sentence”.The performer of the action and the object of the action are also the subject and object in the sentence. They are important semantic roles within the frame. However, it is common to set the subject or object to the default values in Chinese. In order to make the target language guide meaning effectively, the default value of the semantic role of the source language should be explicit in interpreting. There are great differences in the way of thinking between Chinese and English. These differences lead to many differences in their subjects. Cai (2010, pp. 100-104) holds that Chinese is a language with a prominent theme and highlights the theme rather than the subject. Its syntactic features focus on parataxis. As long as the meaning is clear, the grammar is not required to be rigorous. English is a language with a prominent subject. Its syntactic structure focuses on hypotaxis. English grammar rules are very strict. Therefore, the subject of English is indispensable. It is the object of predicate discussion or description. Except for imperative sentences and certain idioms, the absence of a subject in other cases is considered as a serious grammatical error.
Chapter Five Conclusion
5.1 Major Findings
The thesis has conducted the study explicit strategies in Chinese-English consecutive interpreting based on frame theory. Through the analysis of the data, this thesis reclassifies the interpreting explicitation into the structural default values, the contextual default values and the semantic default values. Then the author analyzes the corresponding interpreting strategy for each category of explicitation. First of all, this thesis reclassifies the interpreting explicitation. Although previous scholars have proposed different views on explicit categories, they are either not proposed for Chinese-English consecutive interpreting, or there are many overlapping parts between explicit categories. The author reclassifies the categories of Chinese-English consecutive interpreting from the microscopic perspective. Because the essence of explicitation is to manifest the default values implied behind the linguistic signs. Therefore, the division of explicit categories is actually the division of default values implied behind the linguistic signs. The thesis divides the explicitation into structural default values, contextual default values, and semantic default values.
5.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies
The author applies the frame theory to approach explicit strategies in Chinese-English consecutive interpreting and achieves the goal to shed some light on the study of explicitation in Chinese-English consecutive interpreting, but there are still some limitations in this thesis. First of all, although the study selects consecutive interpreting texts of the Press Conference of the Premier Li Keqiang from 2016 to 2018 as the research data, compared with the large systematical corpora, the research data is still too small . Due to the complexitythe explicitation, the explicit categories and explicit strategies based on the limited research data cannot be applied to all types of interpretation. What is more, the frame theory is so complicated that it contains many aspects. However, this study only selects cognitive frame operation for research. Therefore, there is still a large space left to be discussed in this field. In future research, we can try to apply the frame theory to approach the following aspects. Firstly, future studies can be conducted to test the explanatory power of frame theory in the interpreting activities of other languages, such as Japanese to English, French to German, etc. Secondly, frame theory can be applied to study different types of interpretations, not just interpreting at press conferences, so that there is a more comprehensive and systematic study of the explicitation in interpretation. Thirdly, in addition to applying frame theory to interpreting research, it can also be applied to translation studies.