Features of Discourse Presentation in Translation: Literary and Narratological Insights into Translation Universals
Several translation scholars have recognised translation as a form of discourse mediation or discourse presentation (see, for example, Mossop 1998). In line with this, ‘universals’ of translation have also been re-framed in the larger context of discourse mediation, as mediation universals rather th...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
2016-08-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Literary Linguistics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.linguistik.de/ijll/article/view/68 |
| _version_ | 1819239887886352384 |
|---|---|
| author | Päivi Kuusi |
| author_facet | Päivi Kuusi |
| author_sort | Päivi Kuusi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Several translation scholars have recognised translation as a form of
discourse mediation or discourse presentation (see, for example, Mossop 1998). In line with this, ‘universals’ of translation have also been re-framed in the larger context of discourse mediation, as mediation universals rather than something strictly translationspecific (Ulrych 2009). In the present article, this line of enquiry is developed by comparing some of the alleged universals of translation, namely standardization and explicitation, with insights from literary and narratological studies on the nature of discourse presentation. The notion of reportive or interpretative interference (Sternberg 1982) and Fludernik’s (1993) claim that all represented discourse is typical and schematic in nature seem to bear curious resemblance to the notion of standardization or normalization, posited as a possible universal of translation (Mauranen & Kujamäki 2004). Drawing on the results of my earlier research (Kuusi 2011), I present examples of free indirect discourse (FID) used in Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment with their translations into Finnish. Analyzing the translations, I demonstrate how in
translations, the narratological and literary-theoretical notions of reportive interference and typification/schematization coincide with the translation-theoretical notions of explicitation and standardization. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-23T13:59:16Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c398c88b57fa4cdcb81e9653a8b17843 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2194-5594 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-23T13:59:16Z |
| publishDate | 2016-08-01 |
| publisher | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Literary Linguistics |
| spelling | doaj.art-c398c88b57fa4cdcb81e9653a8b178432022-12-21T17:44:22ZengJohannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzInternational Journal of Literary Linguistics2194-55942016-08-015310.15462/ijll.v5i3.68Features of Discourse Presentation in Translation: Literary and Narratological Insights into Translation UniversalsPäivi Kuusi0University of Eastern FinlandSeveral translation scholars have recognised translation as a form of discourse mediation or discourse presentation (see, for example, Mossop 1998). In line with this, ‘universals’ of translation have also been re-framed in the larger context of discourse mediation, as mediation universals rather than something strictly translationspecific (Ulrych 2009). In the present article, this line of enquiry is developed by comparing some of the alleged universals of translation, namely standardization and explicitation, with insights from literary and narratological studies on the nature of discourse presentation. The notion of reportive or interpretative interference (Sternberg 1982) and Fludernik’s (1993) claim that all represented discourse is typical and schematic in nature seem to bear curious resemblance to the notion of standardization or normalization, posited as a possible universal of translation (Mauranen & Kujamäki 2004). Drawing on the results of my earlier research (Kuusi 2011), I present examples of free indirect discourse (FID) used in Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment with their translations into Finnish. Analyzing the translations, I demonstrate how in translations, the narratological and literary-theoretical notions of reportive interference and typification/schematization coincide with the translation-theoretical notions of explicitation and standardization.https://journals.linguistik.de/ijll/article/view/68Discourse mediationDiscourse PresentationTranslation UniversalsStandardizationExplicitationNormalization |
| spellingShingle | Päivi Kuusi Features of Discourse Presentation in Translation: Literary and Narratological Insights into Translation Universals International Journal of Literary Linguistics Discourse mediation Discourse Presentation Translation Universals Standardization Explicitation Normalization |
| title | Features of Discourse Presentation in Translation: Literary and Narratological Insights into Translation Universals |
| title_full | Features of Discourse Presentation in Translation: Literary and Narratological Insights into Translation Universals |
| title_fullStr | Features of Discourse Presentation in Translation: Literary and Narratological Insights into Translation Universals |
| title_full_unstemmed | Features of Discourse Presentation in Translation: Literary and Narratological Insights into Translation Universals |
| title_short | Features of Discourse Presentation in Translation: Literary and Narratological Insights into Translation Universals |
| title_sort | features of discourse presentation in translation literary and narratological insights into translation universals |
| topic | Discourse mediation Discourse Presentation Translation Universals Standardization Explicitation Normalization |
| url | https://journals.linguistik.de/ijll/article/view/68 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT paivikuusi featuresofdiscoursepresentationintranslationliteraryandnarratologicalinsightsintotranslationuniversals |