Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 10:4 (2019) ► pp.538–558

An activity theory approach to the contextualization mechanism of language use

Taking translation, pseudo-translation and self-translation as examples

| Xi’an Jiaotong University
Contextualization is a widely-discussed topic in the field of linguistics. Although it is generally agreed that contextualization is a dynamic process of interaction among the heterogeneous contextual factors, one still lacks a coherent explanation of how the interactions enable a language user to construct a meaningful text/utterance. From an Activity Theory perspective, language use can be termed as a rule-governed activity. The activity itself is the context of a subject’s decision-making, and contextualization is nothing but the actualization process of a language use activity. During the process, the subject strategizes her/his linguistic choice to build the textual outcome in light of the hierarchical text functions, namely, the conventionalized and situational functions of prospective text (at the higher strata), which respectively embody the social-cultural and situational factors constraining her/his actions, and the conventional function of textual tools (at the basic stratum), a foremost factor conditioning her/his operation. When there are contradictions among these functions, the subject needs to prioritize the one at a higher stratum. This can be exemplified by three typical cases of language use: translation, pseudo-translation and self-translation.
Keywords: language use, contextualization, context, activity, actualization, Activity Theory, translation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.An Activity Theory perspective on “context” and “contextualization”
  • 3.Contextualization of a language use activity
  • 4.Contextualization of three special language use activities – translation, pseudo-translation and self-translation
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 14 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16062.san
References (42)
References
Arrojo, Rosemary. 2005. “The Ethics of Translation in Contemporary Approaches to Translator Training.” In Training for the New Millennium: Pedagogies for Translation and Interpreting Vol. 601, edited by Martha Tennent, 226–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1992. “Introduction: John Gumperz’s Approach to Contextualization.” In Contextualization of Language, edited by Peter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio, 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 2006. “Contextualization in Translator-and Interpreter-Mediated Events.” Journal of Pragmatics 381: 321–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaujour, Elizabeth Klosty. 1995. “Translation and Self-Translation.” In The Garland Companion to Vladimir Nabokov, edited by Vladimir E. Alexandrov, 714–724. New York & London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Bedny, Gregory, Waldemar Karwowski, and Inna Bedny. 2014. Applying Systemic-Structural Activity Theory to Design of Human-Computer Interaction Systems. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booth, Wayne Clayson. 1983. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1990. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bozalek, Vivienne, Dick Ng’ambi, Denise Wood, Jan Herrington, Joanne Hardman, and Alan Amory. 2014. Activity Theory, Authentic Learning and Emerging Technologies: Towards a Transformative Higher Education Pedagogy. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Eileen. 1962. “Little Finger up.” In New Chinese Stories: Twelve Short Stories by Contemporary Chinese Writers, edited by Lucian Wu, 65–82. Taipei: Heritage Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. 张爱玲文集 第一卷 [Anthology of Eileen Chang, Volume 1]. Hefei: Anhui Literature and Art Press.Google Scholar
Engeström, Yrjö. 2010. “Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization.” Journal of Education and Work 14(1): 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Yrjö, and Hannele Keresuo. 2007. “From Workplace Learning to Inter-Organizational Learning and Back: The Contribution of Activity Theory.” Journal of Workplace Learning Vol. 19 (6): 336–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2012. “Context in Interaction.” In What is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges, edited by Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer and Petra B. Schumacher, 105–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitch, Brian T. 1988. Beckett and Babel: An Investigation into the Status of the Bilingual Work. Toronto, Buffalo & London: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1992. “Contextualization and Understanding.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, edited by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August. 2000. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2006. “Text and Context in Translation.” Journal of Pragmatics 381: 338–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, Paula. 2005. Strategy as Practice: An Activity Based Approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, Paula, and Carola Wolf. 2015. “An Activity Theory Approach to Strategy as Practice.” In Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice (Second Edition), edited by Damon Golsorkhi, David Seidl, and Eero Vaara, 165–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinnunen, Tuija. 2010. “Agency, Activity and Court Interpreting.” In Translators’ Agency, edited by Tuija Kinnunen and Kaisa Koskinen, 125–165. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Kuutti, Kari. 1996. “Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research.” In Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction, edited by Bonnie A. Nardi, 17–45. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, James, ed. 2000. Socio-Cultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leontjev, Aleksei N. 1978. Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lin, Shu. 1981. “跋[The Afterword].” In 黑奴吁天录 [Uncle Tom’s Cabin]. Translated by Shu Lin, 2061. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2012. “What is Context: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence.” In What is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges, edited by Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer and Petra B. Schumacher, 9–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nardi, Bonnie A. 1996. “Studying Context: A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action Model and Distributed Cognition.” In Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction, edited by Bonnie A. Nardi, 69–103. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Popovič, Anton. 1976. Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation. Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina. 2004. Translation Criticism: The Potentials and Limitations. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Sang, Zhonggang. 2011. “An Activity Theory Approach to Translation for a Pedagogical Purpose.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 19 (4): 291–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. 二十世纪中国作家短篇小说的汉英自译研究 [A Descriptive Study of 20th Century Chinese writers’ [Chinese-English Self-translations of Short-Stories]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1992. “The indeterminacy of contextualization: When is enough enough?” In The contextualization of language, edited by Peter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio, 55–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowe, Harriet Beecher. 1981. 黑奴吁天录 [Uncle Tom’s Cabin]. Translated by Shu Lin. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
. 1982. Uncle Tom’s Cabin. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Stetsenko, Anna. 2005. “Confronting Analytical Dilemmas for Understanding Complex Human Interactions in Design-Based Research From a Cultural–Historical Activity Theory Framework.” Mind, Culture and Activity 12(1): 70–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stetsenko, Anna, and Igor M. Arievitch. 2014. “Vygotskian Collaborative Project of Social Transformation: History, Politics, and Practice in Knowledge Construction.” In Collaborative Projects: An Interdisciplinary Study, edited by Andy Blunden, 217–238. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
The First Historical Archives of China. 1996. 英使马戛尔尼访华档案史料汇编 [A Collection of Archival Source Materials Concerning the Macartney Mission to China]. Beijing: China International Culture Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1999. “Knowledge as Shared Procedures.” In Perspectives on Activity Theory, edited by Yrjö Engeström, Reijo Miettinen, and Raija-Leena Punamäki, 52–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, James, ed. 1979. The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. New York: N.E. Sharp.Google Scholar
Wong, Lawrence. 2012. “第一次鸦片战争中的译者:英方的译者 [The Translators in the First Opium War: The British Translators].” In 翻译史研究 [Studies in Translation History], edited by Lawrence Wong, 56–57. Shanghai: Fudan University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Zhaotong (张肇桐). 1903. 自由结婚 [Free Marriage]. Shanghai: Shanghai Free Agency.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Sang, Zhonggang
2022. Functional relevance as a principle of translation problem-solving. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Sang, Zhonggang
2023. Towards a methodology for translation activity: an activity theory approach. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies 10:3 ► pp. 244 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.