TRANSLATION

BAB II

BODY

A.  Coherence

1.         Coherence vs Cohesion

Like cohesion, coherence is a network of relation which organize and create a text : cohesion is a network of surface realtion which link words and expression to other words and expression in a text, and coherence is a network of conceptual relation which underlie the surfice texts.

We will assume that cohesion is a property of the text and that coherence is a facet of the reader evaluation of a texts. In other words, cohesion is objective, capable in principles of automatic recognition, while coherence is subjective and judgements conserning it may vary from reader to reader.

2.      Is coherence a feature of text or situation ?

No text is inherently coherent or incoherent. In the end, it all depends on the receiver, and on his ability to interpret the indications present in the way which seems coherent to him – in a way understand it in a way which seems coherent to him – in a way understand it in a way which corresponds with his idea of what it is that makes a sseies of actions into an integrated whole.

The coherence of a text ia a result of the interaction btween knowladge presented in the text and the text an the latter being influenced by a variety of experienceof the world, a simple cohesive relation of co-reference cannot be recognized, and therefore canno be said to contribute to the coherence of a text, if it does not fit in with a readers prior knowladge of the world. These are all factors which effect the coherence of a text in varying degrees because, as human beings we can only make sense of new information in terms of our own knowladge, beliefs, and previous experience of both linguistic and non linguistic events.

3.      Coherence and processes of interpretation : implicature

This is a perfectly coherent, if decontextualized, piece of language. Charolles explains that anyone who hears or reads it will reach the following interpretation : the speaker says that s/he went to the cinema, that s/he drank beer at the cinema, and that the beer in question was good. Note that we naturally provide the necessary links to render the discourse coherent. There is nothing in the above utterance which tells us explicity that the speaker drank the beer or that s/he did soat the cinema. Charolles calls this type of minimal coherence,which he calls explanatory coherence, which not only establishes continuty of sense but, unlike supplemental coherence, also justifies it. The difference between supplemental interpretations and explanatory interpretations.

Explanatory coherence is achieved when, given the right context and the necessary knowladge of setting and participants, one can reach an interpretation such as this: the speaker says s/he went to the cinema. The film s/he can find to say about it is that the beer s/he drank there was good. But how does a speaker signal or a hearer interpret this kind of implied meaning ? how do we achieve explanatory coherence ?

One of the most important notions which have emerged in text studies in recent years is that of implicature – the  question of how it is that we come to understand more than what  s/he literally says. Use s the term implicature to refer to what the speaker means or implies rather than what s/he literally says. Implicature is not to be confused with non-literal meaning, for instance with idiomatic meaning. Idiomatic meaning is conventional and its interpretation depends on a good mastery of the linguistic system in question rather than on a successful interpretationof a partivular speakers intended than or implied meaning in a given contect.

Indeterminacy aside, grice details a number of factors which can contribute to our success or failure in working out implicatures. These are :

1.      The conventional meaning of the words and structures used (i.e. a mastery of the language system), together with the identity of  any references that may be involved :

2.      The co-operative priciple and its maxims ;

3.      The context, linguiticor otherwise, of the utterance ;

4.      Other items of background knowladge ; and

5.      The fact (or supposed fact) that all relevant items falling under the previous headings are available to both participants and both participants know or assume this to be case

B.       Coherence, implicature and translation strategies

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

a)      The conventional meanings of words and structures

This is an obvicus point. If we do not understand the meaning of the words and structures used in a text, we cannot work out in implied meanings. Knowladge of the language system may not be suffiecient but itis essential if one is to nderstand what is going to in any kind of verbal communication. This means that any misttranslation of word and struktures in the source text may well affect the calculability of implicatures in the target.

As well as the conventional meaning words, each language also employs conveying implicatures. In other words, in every language there will be conventional associations between certin linguistic patterns and certain inferable meanings. These patterns are identifiable and are sometimes recorded in grammars. They are not necessarily associated with the same range of meanings in other languages.

b)      The identity of any references that may be involved

The ability to identity references to participants and entities is essential for drawing inferences and for maintaining the coherence of a text. Identifying reference is not just a question of identifying roughly who or what the referent is but, crucially, of knowing enough about the referent to interpret the particular associations it is meant to trigger in our minds in a given contexts. It is meant to beings and entities; they have specific histories, physical and social features, and are associated with particular contexts. It is the ability to interpret the significance of a given reference and that contributes to the continuity of sense or coherence of a text and enables us to draw any intended implicatures. The distinction between identifying reference and other items of background knowladge is perhaps not a useful one to draw.

c)      the co-operative principle and its not maxims

Grice suggest that the cooperative principle and its maxims are not arbitrary but are a future of any rational behavior, be it linguistic or non lingualistic. The suggest that the cooperative principle and its maxims are universal on the behavior and that all human beings are rational. Levinsons (1993) seems to support this sugesstion. The maxims of cuantity is usually abeance in at first sarial court questioning.

The exsistence of an additionals maxims/ be polite and the over reading inportant it tends to assume in many cultures my explain intellegent decission taken in the course of translation which could ather wise seems haphazard and iresponsible.

d)        the context linguistict other wise of the utterance

the contect and utterance occurs determine the range of  implicatures that may sensible by derived from it. Sperber and wilsons suggest that the contect does much more than filter out inappropriate interpretation it provides premises without which the implicature cannot be infered at all (1986 : 37). Tse (1988) explains that the in translating a text which describes an experiment in which the medical histories of pattiens where recorded on micro-chip medical record card, one the main difficulties resulted from differences in this source in the target contexts. The text patients test micro-chip medical record ( the independence 28 april 1988), states : the Dr. robberts stevents whose studyin wales involves one grup practice and one pharmacy said patients reactions to the card had been favourlable.

In the united kingdoms pharmacy is an esthablisment which this despenses medicine on the basis for prespritions signed by a doctor. In additions to yhe actual realitics of a situations, the contects also includes certains stategies that people regularlly  employ in order to impose some kind of stucture on the world arround the.

e)      other items of background knowledge

in order to make sense of any piece of information presented in a text , the reader/hearer has to be able to integrate in into some model of the world, wheter real or fictional. Text-presented information we already have. A text many confirm, contradict, modify, or extend what we know about the world, as long as it relates to it in some way

As explained  under7.3.1 above, there is a great deal of  overlap between identifying reference accessing relevant background information. Wheter a translator decides to explain a reference or not depend on wether the target reader is assumed to be familiarwith it and the extend to which the translator feels inelined to intervene. In the following example, from a hero from zero, both the france and arab translator of the english source document must frence and arab reader, or decided that it is inappropriate for them as translator to comment directly on the source text. The sultan referred to in the extract below is the sultan of brunei who, according to this document, gave mohamed fayed a power of attorncy which put a considerable amount of this founs under fayeds control.

CHAPTER III

CLOSING

A.    Conclusion

Like cohesion, coherence is a network of relation which organize and create a text : cohesion is a network of surface realtion which link words and expression to other words and expression in a text, and coherence is a network of conceptual relation which underlie the surfice texts.

We will assume that cohesion is a property of the text and that coherence is a facet of the reader evaluation of a texts. In other words, cohesion is objective, capable in principles of automatic recognition, while coherence is subjective and judgements conserning it may vary from reader to reader.

No text is inherently coherentor incoherent. In the end, it all depends on the receiver, and on his ability to interpret the indications present in the way which seems coherent to him – in a way understand it in a way which seems coherent to him – in a way understand it in a way which corresponds with his idea of what it is that makes a sseies of actions into an integrated whole.

The coherence of a text ia a result of the interaction btween knowladge presented in the text and the text an the latter being influenced by a variety of experienceof the world, a simple cohesive relation of co-reference cannot be recognized, and therefore canno be said to contribute to the coherence of a text, if it does not fit in with a readers prior knowladge of the world.

B.     Suggestion

To all readers of this paper we expect criticism and suggestions for our paper. For the sake of more efficient understanding. We are sorry if our discussion is less understandable. Thank you