[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Furthermore, instead of asking a question directly, the author can say: thisraises a question; it is by no means clear whether.The decision is verymuch a matter of personal style, but if we hold on to the Maxim, we areready to respect the author s decision relative to the target languageconditions.However, it may not always be so easy to distinguish between theauthor s personal style and the special conditions of the source language.Letme illustrate this by a more complex example, where the translation hasreduced the original quite radically.AmbiguitiesEs ist nämlich keineswegs klar, wer in Zukunft eigentlich zu denNutznießern des Luxus zählen wird.(E 1999 : 160)says the author and the translator turns it into a mere question:Who will count among the beneficiaries of luxury in the future?(E 1997: 338)dropping eigentlich in the interrogative clause, nämlich in the matrix clauseand with it the entire matrix clause.Let us ignore the deletion of the matrix clause for the moment and Grammaticalized clues 117concentrate on the particles.Nämlich and eigentlich are discourse relators ofthe attitudinal type, that is, they relate the meaning of their sentence to otherattitudes or attitudinal objects.Nämlich tells the reader that this (themessage containing nämlich) is what he has to know to understand a pre-vious claim.There is no correspondent element for nämlich in English, and ifit is substituted by a clausal paraphrase, it would have to be something like:One has to know that it is by no means clear who.But the extended matrix clause is overspecified and disproportionate inEnglish; the clausal paraphrase of nämlich cannot compete with the conciseand cordially vague German particle.Dropping nämlich or, rather, itsawkward paraphrase from the translation is thus licensed by the Principle ofOptimal Relevance.We are left, then, with eigentlich in the subclause.Eigentlich has also beendropped from the translation, but it could have been retained in English, atleast for one of the two interpretations it admits.The ambiguity resides in thefocus structure of the sentence.The example belongs to a longer passageabout future luxury, which says that the priorities will shift to the element-ary necessities of life.: quiet, good water and enough space (E 1997: 335).Talking about the future continuation or disappearance of various aspects ofluxury, such as its withdrawal from reality or its role in representation , theessay turns to yet another aspect arising from the reversal of priorities:New and bewildering, however, is another question that must be posedin light of future prospects: Who will count among the beneficiaries ofluxury in the future?or in the original:Neuartig und verwirrend ist eine andere Frage, die sich bei solchenAussichten stellt.Es ist nämlich keineswegs klar, wer in Zukunfteigentlich zu den Nutznießern des Luxus zählen wird.Now, there are basically two focus interpretations of the interrogativeclause, in addition to the inherently focused question word.If the readerrecalls what (s)he knows about the beneficiaries of luxury in the past and thepresent, it will more or less coincide with what (s)he has read in the essay.Itwas the rich and the powerful, who could or even had to put on orgies ofextravagance (E 1997: 330).But since the question implies the possibility ofan alternative, namely, that there are other beneficiaries than those of thepast and the present, it could suggest a contrastive focus on eigentlich:Es ist nämlich [keineswegs KLAR], WER in Zukunft EIGENTLICH zu denNutznießern des Luxus zählen wird. 118 Grammaticalized cluesThis interpretation would need something like an extra real in English thatcould attract the contrastive focus:WHO will count among the REAL beneficiaries of luxury in the future?Obviously, the translator has decided against this option (which the authortells me would have been his option).On the other hand, there has been no explicit reference to the rich andpowerful in the context for quite a while.The readers could thereforeconsider the beneficiaries as a new aspect of the reflections about luxury inthe future and hence as focused information.Thus, they could also interpretthe sentence as:Es ist nämlich [keineswegs KLAR], WER in Zukunft eigentlich zu denNUTZNIESSERN des Luxus zählen wird.This interpretation is not possible for the English version with real, but it ispossible for the English version without a corresponding element foreigentlich, which is the one the translator has opted for.Structurally, this version offers only the question word as focus:WHO will count among the beneficiaries of luxury in the future?Almost everything else could be given due to its definiteness.In contrast tothe German original, the English version does not offer any processing aid,hence the focus interpretation has to be figured out contextually.If one useda subclause without a particle in German:Es ist nämlich keineswegs klar, wer in Zukunft zu den Nutznießern desLuxus zählen wird.one would have the same problem.The processor would take the definite-ness of the internal argument as an indicator of given information andrestrict the focus to the question word:.WER in Zukunft zu den Nutznießern des Luxus zählen wird [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.Furthermore, instead of asking a question directly, the author can say: thisraises a question; it is by no means clear whether.The decision is verymuch a matter of personal style, but if we hold on to the Maxim, we areready to respect the author s decision relative to the target languageconditions.However, it may not always be so easy to distinguish between theauthor s personal style and the special conditions of the source language.Letme illustrate this by a more complex example, where the translation hasreduced the original quite radically.AmbiguitiesEs ist nämlich keineswegs klar, wer in Zukunft eigentlich zu denNutznießern des Luxus zählen wird.(E 1999 : 160)says the author and the translator turns it into a mere question:Who will count among the beneficiaries of luxury in the future?(E 1997: 338)dropping eigentlich in the interrogative clause, nämlich in the matrix clauseand with it the entire matrix clause.Let us ignore the deletion of the matrix clause for the moment and Grammaticalized clues 117concentrate on the particles.Nämlich and eigentlich are discourse relators ofthe attitudinal type, that is, they relate the meaning of their sentence to otherattitudes or attitudinal objects.Nämlich tells the reader that this (themessage containing nämlich) is what he has to know to understand a pre-vious claim.There is no correspondent element for nämlich in English, and ifit is substituted by a clausal paraphrase, it would have to be something like:One has to know that it is by no means clear who.But the extended matrix clause is overspecified and disproportionate inEnglish; the clausal paraphrase of nämlich cannot compete with the conciseand cordially vague German particle.Dropping nämlich or, rather, itsawkward paraphrase from the translation is thus licensed by the Principle ofOptimal Relevance.We are left, then, with eigentlich in the subclause.Eigentlich has also beendropped from the translation, but it could have been retained in English, atleast for one of the two interpretations it admits.The ambiguity resides in thefocus structure of the sentence.The example belongs to a longer passageabout future luxury, which says that the priorities will shift to the element-ary necessities of life.: quiet, good water and enough space (E 1997: 335).Talking about the future continuation or disappearance of various aspects ofluxury, such as its withdrawal from reality or its role in representation , theessay turns to yet another aspect arising from the reversal of priorities:New and bewildering, however, is another question that must be posedin light of future prospects: Who will count among the beneficiaries ofluxury in the future?or in the original:Neuartig und verwirrend ist eine andere Frage, die sich bei solchenAussichten stellt.Es ist nämlich keineswegs klar, wer in Zukunfteigentlich zu den Nutznießern des Luxus zählen wird.Now, there are basically two focus interpretations of the interrogativeclause, in addition to the inherently focused question word.If the readerrecalls what (s)he knows about the beneficiaries of luxury in the past and thepresent, it will more or less coincide with what (s)he has read in the essay.Itwas the rich and the powerful, who could or even had to put on orgies ofextravagance (E 1997: 330).But since the question implies the possibility ofan alternative, namely, that there are other beneficiaries than those of thepast and the present, it could suggest a contrastive focus on eigentlich:Es ist nämlich [keineswegs KLAR], WER in Zukunft EIGENTLICH zu denNutznießern des Luxus zählen wird. 118 Grammaticalized cluesThis interpretation would need something like an extra real in English thatcould attract the contrastive focus:WHO will count among the REAL beneficiaries of luxury in the future?Obviously, the translator has decided against this option (which the authortells me would have been his option).On the other hand, there has been no explicit reference to the rich andpowerful in the context for quite a while.The readers could thereforeconsider the beneficiaries as a new aspect of the reflections about luxury inthe future and hence as focused information.Thus, they could also interpretthe sentence as:Es ist nämlich [keineswegs KLAR], WER in Zukunft eigentlich zu denNUTZNIESSERN des Luxus zählen wird.This interpretation is not possible for the English version with real, but it ispossible for the English version without a corresponding element foreigentlich, which is the one the translator has opted for.Structurally, this version offers only the question word as focus:WHO will count among the beneficiaries of luxury in the future?Almost everything else could be given due to its definiteness.In contrast tothe German original, the English version does not offer any processing aid,hence the focus interpretation has to be figured out contextually.If one useda subclause without a particle in German:Es ist nämlich keineswegs klar, wer in Zukunft zu den Nutznießern desLuxus zählen wird.one would have the same problem.The processor would take the definite-ness of the internal argument as an indicator of given information andrestrict the focus to the question word:.WER in Zukunft zu den Nutznießern des Luxus zählen wird [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]