Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 20:1 (2020) ► pp.84–106

Spatial deictics in translation

A case of proximal demonstratives in English and Lithuanian

| Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania)
| Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania)
Recent research on deictic elements has made extensive use of translation corpora to demonstrate that asymmetries between translational paradigms signal subtle contrasts from a systemic and pragmatic perspective. The purpose of the present study is to identify translation correspondences of the English spatial demonstrative this in Lithuanian and to discuss the contrastive features within the analytical framework of translational explicitation and implicitation. The results indicate that in the prototypical situational usage there is a high degree of correspondence between this and its Lithuanian translation, while textual uses demonstrate low formal equivalence. A tendency to implicitate stems from the null subject construction and object ellipsis in Lithuanian and is also a result of the availability of facultative deictic words in Lithuanian. The apparent systemic difference between the deictic systems of English and Lithuanian indicates a tendency towards optional implicitation and stylistic variation in literary translation.
Keywords: spatial deixis, demonstratives, explicitation, implicitation, English/Lithuanian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The system of demonstratives in Lithuanian
  • 3.Deixis in translation
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Implicitation
    • 5.2Full correspondence
    • 5.3Explicitation
    • 5.4Cross-linguistic contrasts
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Disclosure statement
  • References
Published online: 17 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.18007.bar
References (36)
References
Ambrazas, V. (ed). 1997. Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language.Google Scholar
Barlow, M. 2008. ParaConc and Parallel Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. Houston: Athelstan Publications.Google Scholar
Becher, V. 2010. Differences in the Use of Deictic Expressions in English and German texts. Linguistics 48(6): 1309–1342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Explicitation and Implicitation in Translation. A Corpus-based Study of English-German and German-English Translations of Business Texts. PhD thesis, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (eds). 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. 1986. Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Tanslation. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Is There a Deictic Frame of Reference? In Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives, P. Auer, M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock and B. Szmrecsanyi (eds), 687–692. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1971. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
2013. Demonstratives on the Move: What Translational Shifts Tell us about Demonstrative Determiners and Definite Articles in Spanish and Dutch. Linguistics 51(3): 517–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H. 2004. Spatial Linking in English and Norwegian. In Translation and Corpora, K. Aijmer and H. Hasselgård (eds), 163–188. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
2006. Not Now – on Non-correspondence between the Cognate Adverbs now and nå . Pragmatic Markers in Contrast 21: 93–114.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. 1996. Demonstratives in Narrative Discourse: a Taxonomy of Universal Uses. In Studies in Anaphora, B. Fox (ed), 205–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Judžentytė, G. 2017. Spatial Deixis in Lithuanian: Demonstrative Pronouns. In Language: Meaning and Form 8. Grammatical and Lexical Variance in Language System, A. Kalnača and I. Lokmane (eds), 173–193. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.Google Scholar
Károly, K. 2017. Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klaudy, K. 2009. Explicitation. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, M. Baker and G. Saldanha (eds), 104–108. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Klaudy, K. and Károly, K. 2005. Implicitation in Translation: Empirical Evidence for Operational Asymmetry in Translation. Across Languages and Cultures 6(1): 13–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krein-Kühle, M. 2002. Cohesion and Coherence in Technical Translation: The Case of Demonstrative Reference. In Linguistics and Translation Studies, L. Van Vaerenbergh (ed), 41–53. Antwerpen: Hogeschool Antwerpen.Google Scholar
Kryk, B. 1987. On Deixis in English and Polish: the Role of Demonstrative Pronouns. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Deixis. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, L. R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pavesi, M. 2013. This and That in the Language of Film. Dubbing: a Corpus-Based Analysis. Meta 58(1): 103–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. The Translation of Conversation and Film Dubbing as a Discovery Procedure: Evidence from Demonstratives. In Language across Languages – New Perspectives on Translation, E. Miola and P. Ramat (eds), 143–172. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Pym, A. 2010. Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Remys, E. 2001. Review of Modern Lithuanian Grammar. Chicago: Lithuanian Research Studies Center.Google Scholar
Ribera, C. J. and Cuenca, M. J. 2013. Use and Translation of Demonstratives in Fiction: a Contrastive Approach (English-Catalan). Catalan Review: International Journal of Catalan Culture 271: 27–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosinas, A. 1996. Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai: funkcijos ir semantika. [Pronouns in Standard Lithuanian: Functions and Semantics]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir Enciklopediju̧ Leidykla.Google Scholar
2009. Baltų kalbų įvardžių semantinė ir morfologinė struktūra: sinchronija ir diachronija. [Semantic and Morphological Structure of Pronouns in the Baltic Languages: Synchrony and Diachrony]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
Stirling, L. and Huddleston, R. 2002. Deixis and Anaphora. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, R. Huddleston and G. K. Pullum (eds), 1449–1564. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valeckienė, A. 1998. Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika [Functional Grammar of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.Google Scholar
Vanderbauwhede, G., Desmet, P. and Lauwers, P. 2011. The Shifting of the Demonstrative Determiner in French and Dutch in Parallel Corpora: From Translation Mechanisms to Structural Differences. Meta 56(2): 443–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J. P. and Darbelnet, J. 1958/2000. A Methodology for Translation. In The Translation Studies Reader, L. Venuti (ed), 84–93. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vondřička, P. 2016. InterText Editor v1.5 Comprehensive Guide. Institute of the Czech National Corpus, Charles University.Google Scholar