{"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.