PRAGMATIC EQUIVALENCE

Pragmatics is the study of language in use. It is the study of meaning, not as generated by the linguistic system but as conveyed and manipulated by participants in a communicative situation. Of the variety of notions that are central to this particular area of language study. I have chosen two which I believe to be particularly helpful in exploring the question of ‘making sense’ and in highlighting areas of difficulty in cross-cultural communication. These are  coherence and implicature.

1.      Coherence

1.1. Coherence vs. cohesion

Coherence is a network of relations which organize and create a text. Cohesion is the network of surface relations which link words and expression to other words and expression in a text, and coherence is the network of conceptual relation which underlies the surface text both concern the way stretches of language are connected to each others.

Cohesion and coherence are not too different to explain. Cohesion refers to connectivity in a text. Coherence refers to how easy it is to understand the writing.

·         Cohesion and coherence

“My favorite colour is blue. I like it because it is calming and it relaxes me. It often goes outside in the summer and lies on the grass and look into the clear sky when I am stressed. For this reason, I’d have to say my favorite colour is blue.”

            This sentence is both coherent and cohesive, but let’s focuses on the cohesion first. Each sentence is connected to the sentence before.

·         Cohesion with no coherence

“My favourite colour is blue. Blue sports cars go very fast. Driving in this way is dangerous and can cause many car crashes. I had a car accident once and broke my leg. I was very sad because I had to miss a holiday in Europe because of the injury...”

As you can see, there is plenty of cohesion here. The sentences connect clearly together but if you read the paragraph, it really makes no sense- started talking about the blue and finished talking about a holiday in Europe. There is no coherence in this sentence.

·         Coherence with no cohesion

”My favourite colour is blue. I’m calm and relaxed. In the summer I lie on the grass and look up”

This is more difficult to understand but basically this lack of cohesion means a lack of sufficient connectors to join the ideas together. If I try hard I can understand what the person is saying: a short answer, an explanation, an example: however the sentences don’t fit together.

·         Coherence and cohesion in conversation

A: “I think these people are having a good time.”

B: “it appears these people are enjoying themselves.”

A: “they seem to be on holiday.”

B: “it looks like they are on vacation.”

            Obviously there is no connection between A and B in this conversation. We understand them and they are coherent. What is missing is cohesion. They are not connected. A is not listening to B and B is not listening to A.

2.      Coherence and processes of interpretation: implicature

Grice proposed a well known distinction between what is said and what is implicated, distinguishing truth-conditional aspects of meaning as what is said and conventional and conversational implicatures as what is implicated. In this distinction, semantics and pragmatics overlap: there is clear-cut boundary. Conventional implicatures, such as the meaning of contrast in ‘but’, the conclusion to premises in ‘therefore’ or the idea of over coming difficulty in ‘manage’, are part of a word meaning but not contribute to the truth-conditional content of sentences.

A reader could recognise continuity of sense between parts of an utterance, but fail to understand it fully. Implicature is how do we understand more than is actually said. Supplemented coherence is minimal coherence. Explanatory coherence is not only establishes continuity of senses, but also justified it. Implicatures are aspects of meaning over and above the literal or conventional meaning of an utterance.

Semantic equivalence is the equivalence of what is said. Pragmatic equivalence is the equivalence of what is implicity communicated. Implicature must not be confused with idiomatic meaning. Idiomatic meaning is conventional and its and interpretation depend on a good mastery of the linguistic system rather than on interpretation. For instance:

·         A: “shall we go for a walk?”

B: “it’s raining.”

Interpreted: “no thanks, I don’t want to get wet”, or “okay, let’s take an umbrella.”

·         The flag is white

Interpreted: “the flag s only white”

·         John has two PhD’s

Interpreted: “I believe John has two PhD’s. And have adequate evidence that he has”

·         Pass the salt

Interpreted: “pass the salt now”

·         A: “can you tell me the time?”

B: “well, the milkman has come”

Interpreted: “the time now is after the time the milkman arrived.”

·         A: “how do I get into your apartment?”

B: “walk up to the front floor, turn the door handles clockwise as far as it will go, and then pull gently towards you”

Interpreted: “pay particular attention and care to each step of the instructions I’ve given you.”

            Implications for translator

            Take account of range of knowledge available among TL audience, and expectations they may have about:

1.      Organization of the world

2.      Organization of language in general

3.      Convections of text types

4.      Structures of social relations

5.      Appropriateness of certain linguistics and non-linguistic behaviors

6.      Etc.

3.      Coherence , Implicature, And Translation Strategies

            For an alternative view of inferential processes in communication see Sperber and Wilson (1986)

1.      The conventional meanings of words and structures and the identity of references.

a.       The conventional meanings of words and structures

This is an obvious point if we do not understand the meanings of the words and structured used in the text, we cannot work out implied meanings. Knowledge of the language system may not be sufficient but it is essential if one is to understand what is going on in any kind of verbal communication. This means that any mistranslation of words and structures in the source text may well affect the calculability of implicatures in the target text.

b.      The identify of any references that may be involved

The ability to identify references to participants and entities is essential for drawing inferences and for maintaining the coherence of a text. A proper name or even a reference to a type of food or gadget which is unknown to the reader can disrupt the continuity of the text.

2.      The co-operative Principle and its maxims

Grice suggests that the co-operative Principle and its maxims are not arbitrary but are a feature of any cational behavior is in linguistic or non-linguistic. He gives examples of non-linguistics events in which all the maxims are seen to apply as they would in any verbal encounter. If someone is assisting you to mend a car and you ask for (Quantity), if you are mixing ingredients for a cake you do not expect to be handed a good book (Relevance’s)and so on. This suggests that the co-operative principle and its maxims are universal, on the assumption that the linguistics behavior is just one type of national behavior and that all human beings are rational.

3.      The content, linguistic or otherwise of the utterance

The content n in which in utterance occur determines the range of implicatures that may sensibly be derived from in Sperber and Wilsonsuggest that the content does much more than filter out in appropriate interpretations in provides premises without which the implicature cannot be inferred at all.

The content also includes certain strategies that people regularly employ in order to impose some kind of structure  on the world around them. When a person describes something recounts an event or list a number of items s/he will normally fallaw a prelerred sequences rather than a random one. For instance in recounting a seriesof events, one would normally follow  a temporal order, listing events, in the order in which they occured.

4.      Other items of background knowledge

Text presented information can only make sense if it can be related to other information we already have a text may confirm, contradict,modify,or extend what weknow about the world as long as it relates to in some way.

5.      The availability of all relevant items falling under the previous headings

The final factor on Grice’s list of data on which the hearer will reply in working out an implicature is, in his own words the fact that all relevant items fallings under the previous headings are available to both participants and both participants know or assume this to be case ‘(1975.50).

Coherence is a very problematic and exlusive nation because of the diversity of factors linguistics and non-linguistics which a particular factor can assume in a given context.

CONCLUSION

            Cohesion is the network of surface relations which link words and expression to other words and expression in a text, and coherence is the network of conceptual relation which underlies the surface text both concern the way stretches of language are connected to each others.

Implicature is how do we understand more than is actually said. Supplemented coherence is minimal coherence. Explanatory coherence is not only establishes continuity of senses, but also justified it. Implicatures are aspects of meaning over and above the literal or conventional meaning of an utterance.

            Coherence, implicature, and traslation strategies:

a.       The conventional meanings of words and structures and the identity of references.

b.      The co-operative Principle and its maxims

c.       The content, linguistic or otherwise of the utterance

d.      Other items of background knowledge

e.       The availability of all relevant items falling under the previous headings