Samad Mirza Suzani
Abstract
1. IntroductionIn the present postmodern world, so many of the biased remarks heard about one nationality or another can be traced to a failure to appreciate the different conventions of politeness and courtesy in different societies; therefore, it can be referred to as an instance of cross-cultural ...
Read More
1. IntroductionIn the present postmodern world, so many of the biased remarks heard about one nationality or another can be traced to a failure to appreciate the different conventions of politeness and courtesy in different societies; therefore, it can be referred to as an instance of cross-cultural pragmatic failure (Mirza Suzani & Armiun, 2011). Furthermore, while a set of underlying social and linguistic conventions are assumed to exist universally in all cultures, contrastive pragmatic analysis needs two kinds of categories to contrast: one linguistic and the other sociological (Mirza Suzani, 2006). In the same vein, despite the idea that the formulaic nature of compliments- their syntactic and lexical predictability- makes them attractive materials, probing compliments in translation can be a troublesome aspect for language learners from different cultural backgrounds (Mirza Suzani & Armiun, 2011). Hence, the study of the speech act of compliments in both source and target languages can be important because paying appropriate compliments and identifying them in each culture is an aspect of communicative competence which may differ in a variety of ways from one culture to another. Moreover, compliments are more often than not culture-specific and reflect fundamental values of the society and the accurate interpretation of illocutionary force of compliments involves knowledge of subtle cultural norms of both source and target languages. Having considered the above points, the present research aims to investigate speech act of compliments in Persian, English and French from a sociocultural perspective. In this regard, it is attempted to probe cross-cultural problems of communication in the three languages to assist readers to make a better understanding of underlying universal social and linguistic conventions in Persian, English and French cultures and hence bridge the gap between socio-pragmatics and translation.2. MethodologyTo link socio-pragmatics and translation and as a matter of concern for both translators and other educators, the present study attempted to direct the readers' attention to cases in which the pragmatic force mapped by Persian native speakers onto a given utterance was systematically different from the force most frequently assigned to it by English and French native speakers of the target language. This study sought to delve into cases in which speech act strategies are inappropriately transferred from source language (SL) to target language (TL). For this purpose, in the current study, a variety of compliments on both greetings and social interactions in Persian, English, and French languages were used to check the perception of Persian, English and French native speakers. The appropriate implementation of compliments in different speech contexts and communities were probed and discussed as well. In this qualitative comparative research study, a corpus of 87 high frequency expressions of compliment performed in greetings (18) and social interactions (69) in the aforementioned languages were presented and content analyzed from a sociocultural perspective. Then, instances of cross-cultural (mis)match in each language were meticulously elucidated.3. DiscussionThe results of this study showed that in Persian the use of compliments is mostly less positive in comparison with those of English and French. Also, Persian speakers seem to be more reticent, indirect, ambiguous, lengthy and vague than English and French speakers. Besides, Persian speakers, unlike English and French speakers, tend to leave compliments somewhat hazy and they avoid assertive statements. Alternatively, compliments in French, as a socio-cultural norm, are not as philosophical and lengthy as they are in Persian, yet they are not as plain and straightforward as English ones either. English native speakers prefer direct responses more than Iranian and French speakers. One of the most indirect strategies employed by Iranians is “giving excuses, reasons, and explanations” for which English speakers show less preference. British speakers prefer another strategy which is “acceptance that functions as a refusal”. On the other hand, the French speakers tend to pick words which, compared to English language, belong to the formal language register. All these differences may bring about mismatch in the process of communication.Additionally, languages differ in how they express politeness. In English, phrases like "I wonder if I could…."can be used to make a request politer; however, the French tend to pick words which, in English language, belong to the formal register. Also, as for compliments, what might be part of everyday French would sound majestic to English ears. The interjection “please” is one interesting example. Although it entered the English language in the 14th century via French and is used in polite requests and questions, the French equivalent is quite longer: “s’il vous plait” literally meaning “if it pleases you” which quickly reminds one of “if you please”, a phrase considered to be old-fashioned and formal in Modern English. There are many examples of words and formulaic phrases that the French speaking people use on a daily basis; these words and phrases that have well established themselves in Modern English are not usually of informal use. As a whole, a quick look at slang and formal expressions in English language would suffice to assert that the more formal a word or an expression, the more likely it is French.As a whole, it can be said that while the differences between French and English compliments are mainly a matter of linguistic registers, Persian compliments are different from both in that they are carved deep in the Iranian culture in which courtesy is intertwined with indirectness and vagueness.4. ConclusionIn analyzing the causes of cross-cultural misunderstandings arising from complimenting behavior, the distinction between pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure can be a very useful one. Pragmalinguistic failure refers to a misunderstanding of the intended illocutionary or pragmatic force of an utterance, while sociopragmatic failure can be accounted for by inadequate knowledge of relevant cultural and social values and may occur when a speaker selects an inappropriate linguistic strategy to express a speech act in a particular context.Analysis of the responses among the speakers of the languages in the present study showed that the tendency to leave the compliments somewhat vague in the English/French of Persian speakers seems to reflect Iranian socio-cultural norm. Besides, the choice of refusal strategies, in times, reflected the different characteristics of Persian speakers compared to the speakers of English and French. A reason for this characteristic can be that deeply-held culture values are not easily given up. Therefore, it has to be remembered that non-native speakers in the process of interpretation/translation are likely to engage in socio-cultural transfer in just those speech acts, like compliments, that involve delicate interpersonal negotiations.The present research could be extended in two broader areas. One such area concerns compliments given in settings different from the ones studied here; the other area concerns the study of response tokens. The present study mostly looked at compliments in formal conversations in a limited scope. Further studies could investigate compliments in settings in which participants are on less familiar terms with each other in order to see whether compliments in these settings are formed in a similar fashion and serve similar or different interactional functions. Such settings would for example be service encounters or encounters in public places such as sport events, campuses, cinemas, etc. Similarly, the design and function of complimenting behavior in talk in institutional settings, such as at the workplace or in educational settings, can be of interest.This study implies that Iranian EFL language educators and translators’ primary concern should be appropriately directed to cases in which the pragmatic force mapped by a Persian speaker onto a given utterance is systematically different from the force most frequently assigned to it by native speakers of the target language i.e. English or French, or when speech act strategies are inappropriately transferred from source language to target language. The best cases can be those drawn from the individuals’ personal experiences as they are learning/translating foreign texts. Therefore, Iranian English instructors and translators have to acquire a high level of pragmatic competence both in the source and in the target language. Having such a pragmatic competence can prove extremely valuable in the fields of translation studies and pragmalinguistics.
Samad Mirza Suzani
Abstract
1. IntroductionThe various disciplines in the humanities are related by chains of authority. Sociolinguistics, for example, historically refers to linguistics and to sociology for the authority of its founding concepts, just as linguistics in turn might refer to philology, or sociology might look back ...
Read More
1. IntroductionThe various disciplines in the humanities are related by chains of authority. Sociolinguistics, for example, historically refers to linguistics and to sociology for the authority of its founding concepts, just as linguistics in turn might refer to philology, or sociology might look back to history, to psychology, or to political economics. In the same vein, the investigation of discourses of philosophy from a historical perspective might be related to translation and translation studies, so that frames and theories in the interface of philosophy and translation can be historically projected. These chains allow concepts to be borrowed and thus constantly displaced. They also allow authority to be projected back onto the discipline referred to, such that authority itself is also constantly displaced across disciplines in consideration.Proposing frames can enable us to idealize Western philosophy as a set of discourses that do not ostensibly borrow authority from external disciplines. It is, instead, a place where terms and concepts would be elaborated and refined for use in other disciplines; it might supremely act in the service of others. On the other hand, translation of philosophy and philosophical discourses has been a concern of Western philosophy ever since the relation with the classical past became problematic. In this vein, the authority of philosophy and the role it takes in other fields of study, including translation studies is notable, which is the main topic of the current study. Drawing on the immense prominent theories and notions proposed by varied scholars in the field of philosophy, the main objective of the present study is to theorize on translation and offer an all-round framework to enable us to hypothesize that translation studies, as a client discipline, is drawing on philosophical discourses and indeed on many other intermediary disciplines as well. In this vein, taking advantage of varied theories and concepts in the area of philosophy, the present research aims to find answers to the following questions:1. What is the historical relationship between discourses of philosophy and translation studies?2. How can revision of discourses of philosophy assist development of translation studies?3. How can hypothesis-making on translation studies be attained through proposing a general all-round framework?2. MethodologyAs a descriptive study, the current research aims to investigate the role of the discourses of philosophy in the development of translation studies from a historical perspective. Accordingly, it attempts to unravel the interfacing role of the philosophical discourses in translation studies to probe the main impact of philosophy on translation and translation theories and reveal in which way(s) the revision in discourses of philosophy can contribute to the developing area of translation studies. 3. DiscussionThe evidence proposed in this study revealed a major problem in the relationships between philosophy and translation. Considering the relevant evidence, the findings showed that authority would mostly flow more from philosophy to translation studies than the other way around. In other words, the theorization of translation has leant on philosophical discourses far more than philosophers have seriously considered translation. In this highly asymmetric relationship, difficult texts fall into the hands of readers from more generalist spheres, therefore, one may suspect that the philosophers would not always identify with what has been done in their name. Besides, in the presence of philosophical authority, many translation theorists are needlessly parochial, while in the absence of philosophical authority, a rather quaint empiricism rules, as in much of Descriptive Translation Studies, or in corpus linguistics, or think-aloud protocols, which rarely transcend positivist notions of science. The central divisions of philosophical discourse itself could help poorly in this respect. Hence, the result is not just a lack of dialogue, but serious misunderstandings.Furthermore, considering the findings it was shown that the discourses of philosophy might be related to translation studies in at least three ways: Philosophers of various kinds have used translation as a case study or metaphor for the issues of more general application; translation theorists and practitioners have referred to philosophical discourses for support and authority for their ideas; and philosophers, scholars, and translators have commented on the translation of philosophical discourses. 4. ConclusionTranslating can be seen as a problem-solving activity in which a source element may be rendered by one or more elements in the target language. If translators have only one available option, there is no more to be said; no philosophy is needed. When, however, they have two or three options, translation is worth talking about, ideally between translators, who start theorizing. And when there are numerous options available and no clear theory about how to reduce that complexity, the cause for discussion reaches levels where philosophical discourse may be turned to, for ideas about the options, although rarely for translational solutions. This can be seen in most of the theories and approaches which have been dealt with in this study. In general, what the philosophical discourses may miss, are for the most part the logics of the more everyday activities, the many techniques by which translators themselves constantly reduce complexity. In addition, philosophical discourses show great tendencies to be revised with respect to problems where more than three or four alternatives are available, and while to develop words appropriate to those alternatives might be the role of philosophy; to adapt and propose them might be one of the roles of translation studies. The current study, as well as the following analogous studies in future, can prepare the ground for proposing further frames and theories in the interface of philosophy and translation.
