Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=azPPIoW--Sl1q7K9tSsh5eOYFXIbjTs7L_J-nLYA1O0&_path=id%3D258323%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Den%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
 
BibTex RIS Cite

İncelik Kuramı ve Yüz Olgusu Bağlamında Çeviri Çalışmalarında İşlevsel-Edimbilimsel Eleştiri Yöntemi Uygulaması

Year 2008, Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2008, 31 - 50, 11.07.2016

Neslihan Kansu-yetkiner

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, Brown ve Levinson’un incelik kuramı (1978, 1987) ve yüz çalışmalarının çeviri uygulamalarındaki yansımalarını House’un (1981, 1997, 1998, 2001) işlevsel-edimbilimsel modeli temelinde incelemektir. İşlevsel-edimbilimsel modelin kuramsal çerçevesine ilişkin olarak çalışma, kaynak metin ve erek metnin dil/metin, kesit dil (söylem alanı, söylem tarzı ve söylem doğası) ve metin türü olmak üzere üç temel düzey karşılaştırılmasına dayanmaktadır. Çalışmadaki temel odaklanma, kişilerarası dil işlevi ve incelik kuramı ile olan yakın ilişkisi nedeniyle kesit dili üzerinedir. Çözümlemeler, kişilerarası ilişkilerde edimbilimsel anlamın bir parçası olarak yüz ve incelik kavramlarının hem dilbilimsel hem de kültürel açıdan büyük farklılıklar gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Hem dilbilimsel ve sosyokültürel metin arasındaki farkların hem de çeviri ve değerlendirme süreçlerinde süregelen sosyo-metinsel uygulamanın ayırdına varmak son derece önemlidir.

Keywords

İncelik Yüz çalışmaları Çeviri değerlendirmesi İşlevsel-edimbilimsel model Kesit dil Çözümlemesi Söylem Tarzı Söylem Alanı Söylem Doğası

References

  • Bayraktaroğlu, A., and Sifi anou, M. (2001). Linguistic Politeness Across boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. Goody, E., (editor) içinde, Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, pages 56-324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Catford, J.C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford:Oxford UP.
  • Chen, R. (2001). Self-politeness: A proposal. Journal of Pragmatics, 33:87-106.
  • Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories, Manchester: St. Jerome’s Press.
  • Fawcett, P. (2007). Translation and Language. Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing.
  • Goffman, E. (1955). ‘On facework’. Psychiatry, 18: 213-231.
  • Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
  • Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 3: 237-257.
  • Gutt, E. A. (1991). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. London, Blackwell.
  • Halliday, M. A.K. (1994): An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London, Edward Arnold.
  • Halliday, M.A.K., McIntosh, A. ve Stevens, P.D. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching London, Longman.
  • Hatim, B. ve Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London/NewYork, Longman.
  • Haugh, M., ve Hinze, C. (2003). A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concept of ‘face’ and ‘politeness’ in Chinese, English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1581–1611.
  • House, J. (1981). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, 2nd ed., Tübingen, Narr.
  • —–(1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited, Tübingen, Narr.
  • —–(1998). “Politeness and Translation,” The Pragmatics of Translation (L. Hickey, ed.), Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, 54-72.
  • ___(2001). Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation, Meta, 46, 2, June, 243-257.
  • Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernments: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2/3): 223-248.
  • Ji, S. J. (2000). ‘Face’ and polite verbal behaviors in Chinese culture’. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1059-1062.
  • Kansu-Yetkiner, N. (2006). Blood, Shame and Fear: Self-Presentation Strategies of Turkish Women’s Talk about their Health and Sexuality. Doktora Tezi, Groningen Üniversitesi, Hollanda.
  • Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2):193-218.
  • Koller, W. (1979). Equivalence in translation theory (translated by A. Chesterman). In A. Chesterman (ed.), Readings in translation theory (Helsinski, Finn Lectures), 99-104.
  • Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: face revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21: 451-486.
  • Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatic, 12:403-426.
  • Mills, S. (2003) Gender and Politeness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Neubert, A. (1985) Text and Translation. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
  • Newmark, P. (1988) A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall.
  • Nord C. (1991). Text Analysis in Translation. Theory, Method, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. (Translated from the German by Christiane Nord and Penelope Sparrow). Amsterdam/Atlanta GA: Rodopi.
  • Porter. E. H. (2005).Pollyanna. (çeviren Şengül Gülbahçe) İstanbul, Timaş Yayınları.
  • Porter. E. H. (2002).Pollyanna. New York, Aladdin Classics.
  • Ruhi, Ş, Işık-Güler, H. (2007). Conceptualising face and relational work in (im)politeness: Revelations from politeness lexemes and idioms in Turkish. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 681-711.
  • Shaw, G.B. (1954). Pygmalion. London: Penguin Books.
  • Shaw, G.B. (1992). Seçilmiş Oyunlar 1/Pygmalion-Kırgınlar Evi-Jan Dark (Çeviren: Sevgi Sanlı), İstanbul, Adam Yayıncılık.
  • Steiner, G. (1975). After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Oxford UP.
  • Strecker, I. (1993). Cultural variations in the concept of ’face’. Multilingua 12, 119-141.
  • Taner, H. (2007). Keşanlı Ali Destanı. Ankara, Bilgi Yayınevi.
  • Taner, H. (1976). The Ballad of Ali of Keshan [Kesanli Ali Destani](çeviren: Nüvit Özdoğru)
  • Modern Turkish Drama içinde (Ed. T. S. Halman), 285-406, Minneapolis: Bibliotecha Islamica.
  • Yücel, F. (2007). “Çeviri Eleştirisi Neyi Eleştirir?” Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 12: 39-58.
  • Zeyrek, D. (2001). Politeness in Turkish and its linguistic manifestations: A socio-cultural perspective. In Bayraktaroğlu, A. and Sifi anou, M., editors, Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The Case of Greek and Turkey, pages 44-73. Amsterdam/Philedelphia: John Benjamins.

A Functional-Pragmatic Evaluation Method for Translation Studies in the Context of Politness Theory and Facework

Year 2008, Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2008, 31 - 50, 11.07.2016

Neslihan Kansu-yetkiner

Abstract

The primary concern of the present study is to trace the refl ections of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1978, 1987), facework, in translation studies using 1981’s functional-pragmatic model (1981,1997, 1998, 2001). With regard to the theoretical framework of the functional-pragmatic model, the study is characterized by the comparison of the source text and the target text on three different levels: the levels of language/text, register (field, mode and tenor) and genre. The main emphasis is upon register analysis due its correlation with politeness and interpersonel language function. Our analyses show that the concept of face and politeness as part of pragmatic meaning in interpersonal relations is highly variable across both linguistic and cultural aspects. It is also highly important to be aware of the difference between linguistic and socio-cultural text, and the on-going social-textual practice both in the translation and evaluation processes.

Keywords

Politeness Facework Translation evaluation Functionalpragmatic model Register Analysis Mode of Discourse Field of Discourse Tenor of Discourse.

References

  • Bayraktaroğlu, A., and Sifi anou, M. (2001). Linguistic Politeness Across boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. Goody, E., (editor) içinde, Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, pages 56-324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Catford, J.C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford:Oxford UP.
  • Chen, R. (2001). Self-politeness: A proposal. Journal of Pragmatics, 33:87-106.
  • Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories, Manchester: St. Jerome’s Press.
  • Fawcett, P. (2007). Translation and Language. Manchester, St. Jerome Publishing.
  • Goffman, E. (1955). ‘On facework’. Psychiatry, 18: 213-231.
  • Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
  • Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 3: 237-257.
  • Gutt, E. A. (1991). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. London, Blackwell.
  • Halliday, M. A.K. (1994): An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London, Edward Arnold.
  • Halliday, M.A.K., McIntosh, A. ve Stevens, P.D. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching London, Longman.
  • Hatim, B. ve Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. London/NewYork, Longman.
  • Haugh, M., ve Hinze, C. (2003). A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concept of ‘face’ and ‘politeness’ in Chinese, English and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1581–1611.
  • House, J. (1981). A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, 2nd ed., Tübingen, Narr.
  • —–(1997). Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited, Tübingen, Narr.
  • —–(1998). “Politeness and Translation,” The Pragmatics of Translation (L. Hickey, ed.), Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, 54-72.
  • ___(2001). Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation, Meta, 46, 2, June, 243-257.
  • Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernments: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2/3): 223-248.
  • Ji, S. J. (2000). ‘Face’ and polite verbal behaviors in Chinese culture’. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1059-1062.
  • Kansu-Yetkiner, N. (2006). Blood, Shame and Fear: Self-Presentation Strategies of Turkish Women’s Talk about their Health and Sexuality. Doktora Tezi, Groningen Üniversitesi, Hollanda.
  • Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2):193-218.
  • Koller, W. (1979). Equivalence in translation theory (translated by A. Chesterman). In A. Chesterman (ed.), Readings in translation theory (Helsinski, Finn Lectures), 99-104.
  • Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: face revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21: 451-486.
  • Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatic, 12:403-426.
  • Mills, S. (2003) Gender and Politeness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Neubert, A. (1985) Text and Translation. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
  • Newmark, P. (1988) A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall.
  • Nord C. (1991). Text Analysis in Translation. Theory, Method, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. (Translated from the German by Christiane Nord and Penelope Sparrow). Amsterdam/Atlanta GA: Rodopi.
  • Porter. E. H. (2005).Pollyanna. (çeviren Şengül Gülbahçe) İstanbul, Timaş Yayınları.
  • Porter. E. H. (2002).Pollyanna. New York, Aladdin Classics.
  • Ruhi, Ş, Işık-Güler, H. (2007). Conceptualising face and relational work in (im)politeness: Revelations from politeness lexemes and idioms in Turkish. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 681-711.
  • Shaw, G.B. (1954). Pygmalion. London: Penguin Books.
  • Shaw, G.B. (1992). Seçilmiş Oyunlar 1/Pygmalion-Kırgınlar Evi-Jan Dark (Çeviren: Sevgi Sanlı), İstanbul, Adam Yayıncılık.
  • Steiner, G. (1975). After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Oxford UP.
  • Strecker, I. (1993). Cultural variations in the concept of ’face’. Multilingua 12, 119-141.
  • Taner, H. (2007). Keşanlı Ali Destanı. Ankara, Bilgi Yayınevi.
  • Taner, H. (1976). The Ballad of Ali of Keshan [Kesanli Ali Destani](çeviren: Nüvit Özdoğru)
  • Modern Turkish Drama içinde (Ed. T. S. Halman), 285-406, Minneapolis: Bibliotecha Islamica.
  • Yücel, F. (2007). “Çeviri Eleştirisi Neyi Eleştirir?” Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 12: 39-58.
  • Zeyrek, D. (2001). Politeness in Turkish and its linguistic manifestations: A socio-cultural perspective. In Bayraktaroğlu, A. and Sifi anou, M., editors, Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The Case of Greek and Turkey, pages 44-73. Amsterdam/Philedelphia: John Benjamins.
There are 42 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Neslihan Kansu-yetkiner

Publication Date July 11, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2008 Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2008

Cite

APA Kansu-yetkiner, N. (2016). İncelik Kuramı ve Yüz Olgusu Bağlamında Çeviri Çalışmalarında İşlevsel-Edimbilimsel Eleştiri Yöntemi Uygulaması. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 19, 31-50.

88x31.png

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) International License.


Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad