To receive regular updates,
fill in your details below.
You will also receive a PDF listing
8 Ways to Ignite your Translation Career.
Success! Now check your email to confirm your subscription.
Translation is a multi-dimensional task which requires different aspects of competence, one of which is linguistic. Falling within the realm of linguistic competence is the ability to produce a relatively similar degree of markedness throughout the translation in order to keep the thematic structure of sentences intact and to consider that the same propositional meanings have different communicative meanings. The present study is a descriptive analytical corpus-based one aimed to analyze the thematic structure of titles of all English books rendered into Persian from the beginning to 2004/1383 drawing on the Hallidayan linguistic taxonomy of marked sentences proposed by Baker (1992). The corpus is a parallel one consisting of 141 marked English books titles and their Persian translations. Comparative analyses of items revealed that about 56.7% of all marked English sentences had been translated into marked Persian sentences, i.e. the thematic structure of ST has been preserved and their communicative meaning corresponds with that of TT.
Keywords: Translation, Title, Information structure (IS), Theme/Rheme, Marked/Unmarked form
Throughout history, translation has undergone many debates by diverse scholars from different perspectives; however, it is widely accepted to be an interdisciplinary practice, especially in relation to linguistics. During the 1960s and 1970s there was an immense influential linguistic turn in translation which enriched translation studies tremendously. Discourse analysis (DA), a branch of linguistics, has also made its valuable contributions to translation. One of the subcategories of DA is information structure - known as structural linguistics - and has to do with propositional meaning vs. communicative meaning: the former is the reality or proposition the sentence expresses, whereas the latter is concerned with what a certain sentence form, in a communicative setting in relation to discourse factors, expresses besides the proposition it conveys. One of the most preponderant issues within the realm of IS is that of markedness. It has been extensively explored and applied in various fields of linguistic studies such as syntax. Interconnected with the issue of syntactic markedness is the concept of word order. The order of words in sentences indicates the order of meanings, and languages differ in this respect. Any change in word order while translating source text, namely, its title, is considerable, since the titles are always the first thing that the audience comes to know about new books and very often serve as an introduction to the work, reflecting the author’s mind, thus changing them would lead to a change in meaning intended by the author. Translators need an awareness of the markedness degree of different constructions in SL, and an ability to produce sentences in TT with a relatively similar degree of markedness. The present study attempts to recognize the degree of markedness and corresponding communicative meaning of all English books’ titles translated into Persian from the beginning to 2004. In line with the objectives of the study, the following research questions were formulated:
1. How do the English titles (ST) correspond with Persian titles (TT) in terms of the markedness feature?
2. How does the communicative meaning of English titles correspond with that of Persian titles according to the IS approach?
2. Theoretical background of the study
1.1 Information Structure
The theoretical approach to information structure originally began to develop at the Prague School of Linguists before the Second World War. They considered a sentence as consisting of two elements of theme and rheme. The theme is the old or given information, and the rheme is the new information (Firbas, 1964). Information structure has to do with the flow of given and new information in discourse, basically called the interaction between topic and focus in the clause or the sentence, and how this interaction is influenced by the cognitive and pragmatic context. Information structure generally falls within the linguistic discipline of pragmatics, but its close links and interface with syntax and semantics make it something more than just a pragmatic approach to text.
2.2. Word Order and Markedness
One of the most preponderant issues within the realm of IS, which has drawn a great deal of attention from researchers, is that of markedness. Bloor and Bloor (1995: 82) have argued that, "Markedness is a concept which is useful in the language study as a whole," and not only with respect to information structure and thematic structure. The markedness theory has been extensively explored and applied in various fields of linguistic studies such as phonology, morphology, semantics, and syntax since the last century; however, in this study, syntactic markedness is intended rather than other types. Interconnected with the issue of syntactic markedness is that of word order which “is extremely important in translation because it plays a major role in maintaining a coherent point of view and orienting messages at text level” (Baker, 1992: 110). Speakers of a language intuitively know that there is a preferred order of clause elements. This preferred, usual, and frequently-expected word order is known as the "unmarked" word order. "Marked" word order, on the other hand, is where clause elements are placed in an unusual position to achieve cohesion, emphasis, stylistic effects, or something else.
Firbas (1992: 112) argues “We feel instinctively that there is a kind of default word order for declarative clauses, that is, a word order which we use unless there is some good reason in the context for using a different word order. This is known as the unmarked word order”. Firbas, in explaining his principle of emphasis, alludes to this addition by saying that, "The unusual order fulfils an additional communicative purpose not served by the usual order, and is in this sense marked" (Firbas, 1992: 118).
Greenberg (1966) assigns the terms "marked" and "unmarked" to opposing structural entities that exhibit a consistently asymmetric relationship in terms of distribution and/or syntagmatic structure and/or paradigmatic complexity. The one of the two entities that is consistently more widely distributed and/or simpler is called "unmarked"; its complement is the "marked" member of the opposition.
Dryer (1995: 112) postulates that markedness involves addition of a meaning component, for example, "The meaning of 'lioness' involves the meaning of 'lion' plus an additional component of meaning," so 'lioness' is marked and 'lion' is unmarked.
Another idea is propounded by Hohle (as quoted in Muller, 1999), who has come up with a way of determining markedness based on the number of context types in which a sentence form can appear; the basic idea being that "the more context types a given sentence can occur in, the less marked it is" (Muller, 1999: 782).
Lambrecht views markedness in information structure as follows:
Information-structure analysis is centred on the comparison of semantically equivalent but formally and pragmatically divergent sentence pairs, such as active vs. passive, canonical vs. topicalized, canonical vs. clefted or dislocated, subject-accented vs. predicate-accented sentence, etc. Using a term introduced by Danes (1966), I will refer to such sentence pairs as pairs of allosentences. Differences in the information structure of sentences are always understood in terms of contrasts between all sentences, i.e. against the background of available but unused grammatical alternatives for expressing a given proposition (Lambrecht, 1994: 6).
Halliday (1994) is the one who best integrated the study of theme-rheme (thematic) structure into his comprehensive theory of functional grammar. In expounding on theme and its various types, he comments on the "standing-out or marked" (Halliday, 1994: 41) themes as well. Having made a distinction between theme, subject, and actor he defines 'canonical theme' as follows:
"In a declarative clause, the typical pattern is one in which Theme is conflated with Subject …. We shall refer to the mapping of Theme on to Subject as the unmarked Theme of a declarative clause (1994: 43). Opposed to this, a Theme that is something other than the Subject; in a declarative clause, we shall refer to as a marked theme" (ibid: 44).
Among linguists working within a Hallidayan framework is Mona Baker, based on whose taxonomy the present study is carried out. She suggests that, “The degree of markedness will depend on the frequency with which the element in question generally occurs in theme position and the extent to which it is normally mobile within the clause. A given type of clause will therefore have one unmarked thematic structure, variations of which will produce different types of marked theme” (Baker, 1992: 129). She continues, “Meaning is closely associated with choice, so that the more obligatory an element is, the less marked it is. The less expected a choice, the more marked it is and the more meaning it carries,” as well as, “The more marked a choice the greater the need for it to be motivated” (Baker, 1992: 129-130).
3. Theoretical framework of the study
The model of analysis for this study is the Hallidayan linguist's taxonomy of marked structures (marked themes) as proposed by Baker (1992). In his model, Baker has identified three different types of marked theme in English: fronted theme, predicated theme, and identifying theme, along with two other types which are not as frequent as the main three, i.e. preposed and postposed themes (Baker, 1992: 132). What follow are five different types of marked theme according to Baker:
3.1. Fronted Theme
Greenbaum and Quirk (as quoted in Baker, 1992: 132) define fronting as "the achievement of marked theme moving into initial position an item which is otherwise unusual there". Fronting could be further divided into smaller subcategories, depending on the item that is moved into clause-initial position, i.e. Fronting of Time or Place Adjunct, Fronting of Object or Complement , Fronting of Predicator.
3.2. Predicated Theme
This foregrounding process involves using an it-structure, commonly known as 'cleft structure' in which an item is placed in a near initial position after an empty pronoun (it) and the verb to be.
3.3. Identifying Theme
This process is very similar to the previous one except that here we make use of a wh-structure rather than an it-structure. Identifying themes are also known by the name 'pseudo-cleft sentences'.
3.4. Preposed Theme
This is when the gloss is attached to the beginning of a clause.
3.5. Postposed Theme
This is different from the preposed theme in that the gloss tag is attached to the end of the clause.
4. Research Design
This study is a qualitative, descriptive-analytical, corpus-based one. It intends to describe, analyze and explain the object of study using corpus-driven data.
4.1. Corpus of the study
The corpus consisted of 1,744 sentence-type English titles among which 141 titles were selected as the marked ones, along with their respective translations into Persian, in order to be analyzed in terms of markedness correspondence. They were extracted from “The catalogue of translated books into Persian from the beginning to 1383/2004” published by the Astan Quds Razavi organization (2011/1390) and the National Library and Archives of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Having aligned the English sentences with their Persian counterparts, the research proceeded with examination of pairs from the viewpoint of thematic structure, or better worded (un)markedness, based on the taxonomy of marked structures proposed by Baker (1992). If the translations had the same markedness degree as the original, they were regarded as a case of correspondence, suggesting that a marked English sentence was translated into a marked Persian sentence. Wherever a difference was observed in marked word order, it was considered as a case of markedness non-correspondence. In the next step, the likely change of the communicative meaning of ST titles according to markedness approach was investigated.
Special care was exercised in the selection of books’ titles, and, for the inter-rater reliability to be established, the data were given to a colleague to test and the same results were achieved.
The results of study made it clear that the proportion of marked sentences to unmarked ones in the original component of the corpus was 141 to 1,603. It was also found that about 56.7 percent of the ST marked titles had marked counterparts, while 43.3 percent of them were rendered to unmarked Persian titles. It was also observed that the fronted object/complement and predicated themes were the most and the least frequently marked categories respectively. The number of items in the first category was 37, out of which 21 items had marked translations. Predicated themes or full inversion is the category with only 1 item translated in marked form. The following figures and tables illustrate the results in more detail:
Table 1. Markedness Correspondence in Translation Total