“For She Loved Much”: Reason Clauses in Translation

Q1 Arts and Humanities SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.54395/jot-ttwkv
P. Kroeger
{"title":"“For She Loved Much”: Reason Clauses in Translation","authors":"P. Kroeger","doi":"10.54395/jot-ttwkv","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses translation issues that arise in dealing with reason clauses of the types introduced in English by the conjunctions because and for. Because, in its subordinating usage, introduces AT-ISSUE reason clauses, in which both the propositional content of the reason clause and the causal relation itself are part of the main point that is being asserted or questioned. Causal for introduces SUPPLEMENTAL reason clauses, which provide secondary or background-type information. An at-issue reason clause expresses a literal causal relation between two propositions (“real-world causation”), whereas supplemental reason clauses allow a wider range of uses, such as providing evidential/epistemic validation (Mark 14:70 “Surely you are one of them, for you too are a Galilean”) and speech act modification (Luke 12:17 “What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops”). Moreover, at-issue reason clauses can have ambiguous interpretations when the main clause is negated, questioned, or contains quantifier words like few and many. This kind of ambiguity does not arise with supplemental reason clauses. Because of these differences, translating a supplemental reason clause in the SL with an at-issue reason clause in the RL, or vice versa, will affect the information packaging of the verse, since the reason clause is interpreted as being part of the main point of the utterance in one type, but not in the other. This kind of substitution will also add to or restrict the range of possible meanings of the sentence. In some cases, this can introduce ambiguity into the RL that is not present in the SL. In others, it may even remove the correct, intended meaning of the verse as a potential reading of the RL version.","PeriodicalId":38669,"journal":{"name":"SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54395/jot-ttwkv","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This article discusses translation issues that arise in dealing with reason clauses of the types introduced in English by the conjunctions because and for. Because, in its subordinating usage, introduces AT-ISSUE reason clauses, in which both the propositional content of the reason clause and the causal relation itself are part of the main point that is being asserted or questioned. Causal for introduces SUPPLEMENTAL reason clauses, which provide secondary or background-type information. An at-issue reason clause expresses a literal causal relation between two propositions (“real-world causation”), whereas supplemental reason clauses allow a wider range of uses, such as providing evidential/epistemic validation (Mark 14:70 “Surely you are one of them, for you too are a Galilean”) and speech act modification (Luke 12:17 “What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops”). Moreover, at-issue reason clauses can have ambiguous interpretations when the main clause is negated, questioned, or contains quantifier words like few and many. This kind of ambiguity does not arise with supplemental reason clauses. Because of these differences, translating a supplemental reason clause in the SL with an at-issue reason clause in the RL, or vice versa, will affect the information packaging of the verse, since the reason clause is interpreted as being part of the main point of the utterance in one type, but not in the other. This kind of substitution will also add to or restrict the range of possible meanings of the sentence. In some cases, this can introduce ambiguity into the RL that is not present in the SL. In others, it may even remove the correct, intended meaning of the verse as a potential reading of the RL version.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“因为她爱得多”:翻译中的理由从句
本文讨论了英语中由because和for连词引入的原因从句的翻译问题。因为,在它的从属用法中,引入了AT-ISSUE原因从句,其中原因从句的命题内容和因果关系本身都是被断言或质疑的主要观点的一部分。cause for引入补充理由从句,提供次要或背景类型的信息。一个有争议的理由从句表达了两个命题之间的字面因果关系(“现实世界的因果关系”),而补充理由从句允许更广泛的用途,比如提供证据/认知验证(马可福音14:70“你当然是他们中的一个,因为你也是加利利人”)和言语行为修正(路加福音12:17“我该怎么办,因为我没有地方存放我的庄稼”)。此外,当主句被否定、被质疑或包含像few和many这样的量词时,争论中的理由子句可能有模棱两可的解释。这种歧义不会出现在补充理由从句中。由于这些差异,将SL中的补充理由从句与RL中的争论理由从句进行翻译,反之亦然,都会影响诗歌的信息包装,因为在一种类型中,理由从句被解释为话语的主要观点的一部分,而在另一种类型中则不然。这种替换也会增加或限制句子可能意义的范围。在某些情况下,这可能会给RL引入在SL中不存在的歧义。在其他情况下,它甚至可能会删除作为RL版本潜在阅读的正确的,预期的意思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation
SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Traduction orale de la Bible : Sa prise de conscience Is Translation Always Transfer? Challenging the Dominant Conceptual Metaphor in African Bible Translation Training Review of: The King James Version at 400: Assessing Its Genius as Bible Translation and Its Literary Influence, eds. David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko, Philip H. Towner Building Partnership Between Church Interpreting and Bible Translation Complex Conditional Sentences and the Verb אָשַׁם ʼāšam in Leviticus 4–5
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1