A.A. 2022-2023 University of Salento Language & Translation Lecture Notes PDF

© Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento PROGRAMMA D’ESAME DETTAGLIATO – PROVA ORALE Anno accademico 2022-2023 LINGUA E TRADUZIONE – LINGUA INGLESE...

© Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento PROGRAMMA D’ESAME DETTAGLIATO – PROVA ORALE Anno accademico 2022-2023 LINGUA E TRADUZIONE – LINGUA INGLESE Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido Negotiating Cultures from specialized text production to cross-cultural reception & translation II Anno Corsi di Laurea Magistrale in “Lingue Moderne, Letterrature e Traduzione” e “Traduzione Tecnico-Scientifica e Interpretariato” Libro di Testo: © Maria Grazia Guido, Mediating Cultures: A Cognitive Approach to English Discourse for the Social Sciences. Milano: LED Edizioni Universitarie. (Disponibile online al sito: https://www.amazon.it/Mediating-cultures-cognitive-approach- discourse/dp/8879162632/ref=pd_ybh_a_26?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SJ3HXVVP1JF87SFRVBM6). Altri testi utilizzati nel Corso tratti da: © M.G. Guido (2008) English as a Lingua Franca in Cross-cultural Immigration Domains. Bern: Peter Lang; and © M.G. Guido (2018) English as a Lingua Franca in Migrants’ Trauma Narratives. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 1  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento Lezioni: Dispensa con compendio degli argomenti: Course Context Course Focus: Theoretical-linguistic concepts & practical issues of meaning negotiation applied to cross-cultural professional domains of communication: - discourses of marketing, advertising, economics, politics, international law, diplomacy, socio-political journalism, science, social engineering & literature - all domains within which university students in intercultural and interlinguistic mediation & translation are expected to work in the future. Course Rationale: Need for ‘negotiation of meanings’: search for a mutual understanding & agreement on the sense and implications of concepts expressed through English – today’s ‘lingua franca’ for cross-cultural specialized interactions where meanings are unshared and unstable (cf. Guido 2008). Course Objectives Cognitive approach to English Linguistics exploring the three pragmatic perspectives of cross-cultural communication: 1) the perspective of the Sender of the Text constructing verbal messages in English; 2) the perspective of the Receiver of Discourse interpreting the message; 3) the perspective of the Translator rendering the message into an equivalent one so as to make it accessible and acceptable in another language and culture. Theoretical Background: Text & Discourse - Text Linguistics (text production): the study of production of a verbal message (in English) focused on the cognitive and linguistic background that a Text Producer possesses and uses as s/he constructs what s/he intends to communicate within a particular socio-cultural context – cf. Constructivism (van Dijk 1982): codification of language into a text. - Discourse Analysis (discourse reception): the study of the reception and interpretation of the message, focused on the processes by which a Text is interpreted by its Receivers through their own cognitive & linguistic backgrounds within particular socio-cultural contexts – cf. Connectionism (Rumelhart et al. 1986): semantic categorization and meaning attribution to a discourse. Theoretical Background: Schema Theory Schema Theory: to be traced back to the cognitive theory of Gestalt Psychology: any new experience is recognized & rendered meaningful in reference to a stereotypical version of the same experience already stored in the mind (the so- called schema, or – in the plural – schemata). The new experience is processed in terms of its divergence from, or convergence to, that stereotypical version. Schema-theory implications: the way an event is experienced & codified into a text (i.e., ‘textualized’) by a Text-Producer may not be interpreted in the same way as a discourse by its Receivers who may possess different schemata for that experience. Interpretative Model of Translation of specialized discourse to enquire into the translator’s cognitive processes as s/he analyses & translates English specialized texts to make them work as discourses in different languages and socio- cultural contexts. Translator’s processes: 1) interprets a text as discourse 2) identifies its genre by register analysis 3) converts it into a formal & pragmatic equivalent in another language 4) makes the new text function as discourse within a different socio-cultural and linguistic context. 3 stages of the Interpretative Model (1) interpretation of the source text; (2) negotiation of meanings between the source culture producing the original text and the target culture that shall receive its translated version; (3) rendering of the meanings and form of the source text into a target text to function pragmatically as discourse in the target culture and in the target language. Interpretation & Transmission Models of Translation Interpretative Model: socio-cultural & pragmalinguistic reformulation of the source text to make it accessible to the Receivers from the target language and culture (translation as a process of meaning negotiation between two different languages and cultures). Transmission Model: meaning as inherent in the text. Equivalence between Text-Producer’s intentionality in conveying his/her meanings and Text-Receiver’s interpretation of such meanings (translation as a product of meaning conveyance from one language to another). Coincidence between intentionality and interpretation is required for transactions between global communities of specialists who share the same logical- cognitive patterns (factual schemata) and the same structural-rhetorical conventions (procedural scripts). 2  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento Locution, Illocutionary Force, Perlocutionary Effects (a) Locution (semantic organization of a text – indexical function); (b) Illocutionary Force (of original & translated versions of message): text-producer’s & translator’s intentionality in organizing a text & make it work as discourse; (c) Perlocutionary Effects (of original and translated versions): text-receivers’ interpretations of both versions of text as discourse in source and target contexts. - Translators’ search for semantic, pragmatic & structural equivalence between source & target texts; - Translator’s factual & procedural competence in both languages & cultures. Interpretation Model of Translation: Conditions of Text Production - Text-centred theories (New Criticism, Corpus Linguistics, etc.): text production & translation as ‘transmission of meanings encoded in the text’. - Difference between semantic sense, functional signification and pragmatic significance in defining ‘meaning’. - Translator’s phases of intra-lingual analysis & inter-lingual translation of specialized texts. - Text-type, Genre, and Text-token levels. Interpretation & Rendering phases - Interpretation of specialized texts and their rendering into another language (semantic, lexical, syntactic, & pragmatic phases of text analysis and translation). - Non-Western receivers’ appropriation and authentication (Guido 2008) of specialized texts according to their own schemata deviating from Western specialized-text schemata to allow personal interpretations of the specialized text & avoid estrangement sense. A translated text allows as many discourse interpretations as there are receivers to interpret it. Intentionality & interpretation in specialized texts The Intentionality/Interpretation coincidence cannot exist if specialized texts are interpreted by non-specialized receivers. e.g.: - Locution (semantic organization): Indexical Function (reference to the Musical Cats) represented as iconical, metaphorical. THE CATS STILL GO ON THE STAGE Illocutionary Force (Sender’s intentionality): report of a stage success, or of a sense of annoyance, irritation, or a simple account of a fact. Perlocutionary Effect (Receiver’s interpretation): it can diverge from the Sender’s intentionality for the same reasons listed above. e.g.: THE PURR-FECT CATS WILL RUN AS LONG AS THE NEW LONDON STANDS - Knowledge of the English language for the wordplay and cultural references. Deconstructionist Approach Culler (1983): giving a sense to what we read implies deconstructing it, which means that: a) while we read an original text in a specific language, we unconsciously deconstruct it into a universal semantic representation containing all the information that we manage to derive from the original text during our reading; b) this semantic representation – not the source text – is at the grounds of translation. The Translator reconstructs the semantic representation, not the source text. SOURCE TEXT → SEMANTIC REPRESENTATION → TARGET TEXT New Criticism Focus on Text, considered as a container of meanings to be transmitted unaltered in their form and content even though they are re-codified into another language (cf. Transmission Model of Translation). Wimsatt (1954): - Intentional Fallacy: it is impossible to search for the meaning of a text in the Sender’s intentionality. - Affective Fallacy: it is unreliable and inconsistent to ascribe meaning to the Receiver’s subjective interpretation. Yet: New Critic’s Pragmatic Fallacy: every reading defined as merely textual and objective is in fact a discourse interpretation by a specific group of Critics who impose it upon other possible interpretations as if it were the only reliable one. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) Fairclough (1989, 1992, 1995): focus on the ideological meaning of the text, codified by a specific political group through a semantic and structural language manipulation. CDA Fallacy: the CDA analyst determines what the text pragmatically & ideologically means in a specific context on the basis of his/her own ideological beliefs, not on the basis of the semantic and syntactic structure of the text as it was constructed by its author. And yet, s/he claims the status of objectivity for his/her own subjective interpretation of the text. 3  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento Halliday’s Social-Semiotic perspective Halliday (1985): human beings use the language to establish: a) first-/third-person ideational relationships (between themselves and reality); b) first-/second-person interpersonal relationships (between themselves and the others). In the natural process of semantization of the pragmatic uses evolved over time and fixed into lexical & grammatical categories, such relationships have been codified (grammaticalized) into the formal system of the language. Halliday defines such a process as Social Semiotics, which is not an ideology inherent in a language, capable of manipulating the world’s view of a speech community in favour of a single power perspective – but: Social Semiotics cannot either ‘fix’, or ‘condition’ or ‘manipulate’ the pragmatic evolution of a language in relation to the changes of social and cultural contexts. Corpus Linguistics Computer-mediated analysis and translation of specialized texts, useful for: a) coping with vast quantities of data in rapid and efficient ways; b) automatically analyzing grammar accuracy; c) mechanically searching for the equivalence between source and target texts; d) instantaneously elaborating huge corpora of texts under the form of ‘strings’ to show objective evidence of structural occurrences in real languages (syntactic and lexicographic concordances, lexico-semantic collocations, stylistic preferences). Quantitative Fallacy: simple identification of lexical and structural sequences of a specialized register without taking into account the stylistic-communicative effects of such frequencies on receivers (e.g., the rhetorical routines in relevant communicative contexts, or ‘speech events’). Transformational-Generative Cognitive Linguistics (Chomsky) Equivalence based on the ‘deep structure’ of a language underlying different structural ‘surface-structure’ realizations which are all semantically equivalent. e.g.: 1. The patient must swallow the tablet 2. The tablet must be swallowed by the patient 3. It is the patient who must swallow the tablet 4. It is the tablet that must be swallowed by the patient They can be translated into any of the following target-language clauses, which are likewise semantically equivalent: 5. Il paziente deve ingoiare la compressa 6. La compressa deve essere ingoiata dal paziente 7. E' il paziente che deve ingoiare la compressa 8. E' la compressa che deve essere ingoiata dal paziente Schema Theory Equivalence in translation is both structural and pragmatic (deep rhetorical structure - Widdowson 1979). Different grammatical structures of the same concept always convey a different pragmatic focus modifying the Illocutionary Force (and the Perlocutionary Effects) of discourse. CDA & Schema Theory: hybridization of genres Text: Antenatal care “The doctor and the midwife will also want to know about all your previous health problems, as well as discussing your social circumstances. We do know that social conditions can influence the outcome of the pregnancy. For this reason, they will ask you details about your housing, as well as your present job. In addition they will need to know if you smoke, drink alcohol or if you are taking any drugs which have been prescribed by your doctor or chemists. All of these substances can sometimes affect the development of a baby.” Cognitive & Systemic-Functional characteristics of the Translation Model Cognitive processes activated by the Translator in his/her approach to the text s/he translates: 1) awareness of the immediate effects that the text produces on the translator’s schemata, which are both experiential- and subjective as well as socio-cultural and collective; 2) analytical evaluation of textual signals; 3) interpretation of the text to be translated as a discourse typical of a specific ‘genre’. Translation objectives The Translation Process consists in the transformation of a source text (originally codified into a certain language) into another target text which is equivalent to the original one as it has to keep the content of the message, the formal characteristics and the functional rules of the source text. Yet: Cross-cultural equivalence fallacy: socio-cultural, pragmatic and typological-structural divergences between the source and the target languages often produce mistranslation. 4  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento The nature of Meaning Three conceptual dimensions of the Meaning construct: 1) Semantic Sense: symbolic, denotative and logical-conceptual dimension of the meaning of single lexems as well as of whole propositions. It organizes reality and experience in mental representations that transcend every linguistic code; 2) Systemic-Functional Signification: formal and indexical dimension of meaning which grammatically actualizes (textualizes) – through the systemic-functional and lexical code of each language – the cognitive representations of logical-semantic structures making them linguistically available for discursive use in real communicative contexts; 3) Pragmatic Significance: pragmatic dimension of meaning which is dependent on the particular relevance that a word, or a whole discourse, can have for each participant in a communicative event, as well as on the other two dimensions of sense and significance. Example (non-relevance dimensions in a specialized text): - Samples of sand taken from the sun-kissed, palm-fringed beaches of Goa revealed abnormally high concentrations of sodium chloride. - Campioni di sabbia raccolti dalle spiagge di Goa baciate dal sole ed orlate di palme, hanno rivelato delle alte concentrazioni di cloruro di sodio straordinariamente anomale. Cross-cultural equivalence fallacy in forensic transcription (© From: M.G. Guido (2008) English as a Lingua Franca in Cross-cultural Immigration Domains. Bern: Peter Lang. M.G. Guido (2018) English as a Lingua Franca in Migrants’ Trauma Narratives. London: Palgrave Macmillan.) Mistranslation at every dimension of meaning due to contextual dislocation from the source to the target languages and cultures. (A) Original field transcript in Sierra Leonean Krio Interview extract (IM = intercultural mediator; AS = asylum seeker) IM: was everything oka::y with the Committee? AS: o (.) dehn de chehr mi asylum application (.) yu si::? / IM: Pardon? (.) ehm (.) can you explain (..) [>what do you mean?for getting the humanitarian permit< (..) AS: Uh (..).hh a noh want foh go bak de, na Salone, yu si::?/ Cross-cultural equivalence fallacy in forensic transcription (B) Literal translation into Standard English IM: Was everything okay with the Committee? AS: They are tearing my asylum application, you see?/ IM: Pardon? (.) ehm (.) Can you explain (..) [what do you mean?] AS: [Yes,] they say my country is Nigeria. I tell them that I come from Sierra Leone, but they don’t listen to me./ IM: They don’t listen to you? AS: No. IM: So (..) now you should try to get a (.) humanitarian permit, then. (..) In this way your bosses could perhaps (..) regularize your work (..) AS: Oh, these bosses here keep kicking me every day!/ IM: What? They kick you? AS: They say that I should follow them but their path is not clear./ IM: Do you say that they tell you to follow them? [Where?] AS: [They] are leaving me in the dark./ Everything stinks./ (..) All this kicks the props out from under my feet./ IM: (..) So you are saying they don’t treat you well? (..) Perhaps (.) this could be a good reason for getting the humanitarian permit AS: Uh, … I don’t want to go back there, to Sierra Leone, you see?/ 5  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento Cross-cultural equivalence fallacy in forensic transcription (C.a) Edited ‘ethnopoetic’ translation into Italian (cf. Hymes – entextualization of oral ethnic narrative into sonnet-like ‘lines’) In Commissione stanno criticando severamente la mia richiesta d’asilo, la stanno facendo a pezzi./ Loro dicono che il mio Paese è la Nigeria. Io dico loro che provengo dalla Sierra Leone, ma non mi danno ascolto./ I capi per cui lavoro, poi, non fanno che disprezzarmi, come se mi prendessero a calci ogni giorno./ Loro mi dicono che dovrei seguirli nel loro ragionamento, ma il percorso di ciò che dicono non è chiaro./ Loro mi lasciano all’oscuro di tutto./ Tutto mi puzza di ambiguo./ Tutto questo mi destabilizza, come se mi scardinasse a pedate i puntelli, cioè, tutte le mie speranze e le mie credenze, da sotto i piedi./ Non voglio ritornare là, in Sierra Leone, capisci?/ Cross-cultural equivalence fallacy in forensic transcription (C.b) ‘Ethnopoetic’ back-translation into Standard English The Committee members are criticizing my asylum application severely, as if they were tearing it./ They say that my country is Nigeria. I tell them that I come from Sierra Leone, but they don’t listen to me./ The bosses I work for, moreover, keep disregarding me, and I feel as if they were kicking me every day!/ They say that I should follow their argument, but the line, the ‘path’ of what they say is not clear./ They leave me entirely ignorant, as if in the dark, about everything./ Everything seems ambiguous, it ‘stinks’./ Everything undermines my hopes and beliefs making me feel lost, as if it ‘kicked the props from under my feet’./ I don’t want to go back there, to Sierra Leone, you understand?/ Cross-cultural equivalence fallacy in forensic transcription (D.a) Intercultural Mediator’s forensic (mis)translation into Italian (‘western’ paragraph convention) La Commissione ha stracciato la mia richiesta d’asilo e quando cerco di spiegare loro le mie ragioni non mi ascoltano nemmeno. Anche i miei capi non desiderano altro che prendermi a calci ogni giorno! Mi dicono di seguirli per una strada dissestata, e poi mi hanno lasciato chiuso in un posto al buio completo e qui c’è puzza ovunque. Spesso tutti loro hanno anche preso a calci le stampelle da sotto i miei piedi. Vedi? Non voglio tornare da loro! Cross-cultural equivalence fallacy in forensic transcription (D.b) Forensic back-(mis)translation into Standard English The Committee members have torn my asylum application to bits and when I tried to set out my reasons they didn’t even listen to me. My bosses, too, are only keen to (on) kick(ing) me every day! They tell me to follow them along an uneven road, and then they left me shut in a completely dark place and here there is a bad smell everywhere. Often all of them have also kicked the crutches away from under my feet. Can you see? I don’t want to go back to them! Text Types, Discourse Genres & Text Tokens Three levels of analysis: Text Type: cognitive level, independent from any linguistic code, organizing semantic sense (i.e., logical-conceptual relations) of experience, classifying it into conventional schemata, including: specialized competence of specific topics & of how they are conventionally structured so as to reproduce the phases of the experience they represent. Discourse Genre: formal level, linguistically actualizing an abstract text type, standardizing its signification through three Register parameters: Field (topic context), Tenor (relations between participants), & Mode (language uses). Text Token: functional-pragmatic level of a possible empirical actualization (instantiation) of a text-type/genre relation (or Text), concerning the particular significance of that Text as Discourse within a specific community. Three Levels of Intralinguistic Analysis 1. Text-Type Analysis: scientific-medical text: Topic: semantic content of the text (e.g.: scientific experiments); Logical Macrostructure: conceptual organization of the text characterizing the standardized rhetorical-cognitive scheme of its typology (Problem-Method-Solution – iconically reproducing the phases of the real scientific experiments); Formulae & Specialized Acronyms: transcending the different linguistic codes as they are understood by the whole community of specialists (community of practice). 1. Genre Analysis: e.g.: report on medical-research developments. a) Register parameters: formal actualization of the Topic through lexical & grammatical features of the medical- scientific language shared by the international community of practice: Tenor: syntactic choices signaling the relations between Sender & Receiver of texts belonging to this discourse genre (e.g., formal & impersonal tone, indicating distance between Sender & Receiver; limited lexical-conceptual accessibility, & specialized lexicon); Mode: the channel conveying content & determining the typical use of language (e.g., scientific report: lack of spontaneity & of real dialogical participation in discourse); Field: the topic expressed through specific grammar choices related to the specific genre (e.g., cognitive, evaluative functions, etc.). b) Formal-Stylistic structures: style characterizing the specific genre (e.g., scientific-medical report: the ‘Problem- Method-Solution’ logical macrostructure actualized through Argumentative style: Definition-Exemplification-Comment, or Assumption-Deduction-Conclusion). 6  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento 3. Text-Token Analysis: e.g.: belonging to the ‘scientific-medical report’ genre & to the scientific-medical text- typology. Textual standards (de Beaugrande & Dressler 1980) to make a text-token communicative in a specific context: Intentionality & Acceptability: regulative norms making communicative cooperation between Sender & Receiver more efficient & appropriate. Informativity: organizing the system of ‘Thematization’ of the information to be conveyed: i.e.: Theme (given information) + Rheme (new information). Speech Acts: e.g., in scientific-medical texts they are representative, declarative & directive. Intercultural Model of popular translation Popularization & Translation of specialized texts revisited in terms of culturally- & ethnically-marked ‘deviations’ occurring at, respectively, intra-lingual and inter-lingual levels of cognitive & pragmatic variability. Popularizing a culturally-marked specialized discourse & translating it into another language & culture aim at enhancing discourse accessibility and acceptability according to different cultural parameters. a) Text-Producer’s intra-lingual deviations from rhetorical norms of specialized registers to make content & his/her illocutionary intent accessible to non-specialized receivers. b) Translator’s intra-lingual & inter-lingual reformulations of source popular scientific text relying on his/her own background knowledge (socio-cultural schemata), to: (a) interpret perlocutionary effects that the ‘rhetorically divergent’ source text has on him/her; (b) render his/her interpretation into the new illocutionary force of the translation based on his/her ‘native pragmalinguistic transfer’. Case study enquiring into the schemata of translators with different ethnic backgrounds (i.e., a Chinese, a Nigerian, & an Israeli) while they are engaged in interpreting & rendering into their own L1s a popular English text on ‘Nutrigenomics’ (genomic research on how diet influences the balance between health & disease depending on an individual’s genetic makeup, or ‘ethnic genotype’). - Both popular and translated texts as reformulations of the source scientific text they derive from to ‘facilitate readability’ by making specialized knowledge accessible to non-specialist receivers’ familiar cognitive & communicative experiences, or ‘socio-cultural schemata’. - Widdowson: accessibility achieved when a text-producer and/or a translator succeed in bringing receivers’ different knowledge & experience into interpretative convergence & acceptability by negotiation. Discourse strategies of accessibility and acceptability involve processes of simplification, not meant as providing a simplified version of the source text, but a reformulation to suit a particular group of receivers. Misinterpretation may arise when: a) the Popular-Text Producer is unfamiliar with the specialized form & content of a source scientific text, so s/he carries out an intra-lingual reformulation of the source text into a parallel popular version by making & confirming predictions about new knowledge with reference to his/her own prior socio-cultural knowledge stored in his/her own schemata; b) the Popular-Text Translator’s schemata diverge from those of the Popular-Text Producer’s and, so, they influence his/her inter-lingual reformulation by activating an intercultural-transfer process while interpreting & translating connotations & presuppositions in the source scientific text. (Hence, Producer’s intention & Translator’s interpretation do not coincide). Intercultural Model of popular translation: Case-study subjects: three ethnically-different translators (T) of a popular source text: (a) Chinese man from Hong Kong (T1), L1-Cantonese speaker, L2-Mandarin Chinese & English as ‘lingua franca’ (ELF); (b) Nigerian man (T2), L1-Hausa speaker, L2/ELF Nigerian (Pidgin) English; (c) Israeli woman (T3), L1-Hebrew speaker, L2-English/ELF. Case-study method: think-aloud technique – translators’ tape-recorded ELF verbalization of perlocutionary effects that Text 2 produced on them while reading it for the first time. Intercultural Model of popular translation 1. Interpretation phase: analysis of Translators’ (a) bottom-up processes, relying on the meanings they achieved from Text 2 assumed to be a specialized text; (b) top-down processes, relying on their own socio-cultural schemata activated when coming across deviations from text-type/genre norms. 2. Rendering phase: analysis of Translators’ intercultural transfer regarding: (1) Text-Producer’s probable illocutionary force of Text 2; (2) perlocutionary effects of Text 2 on Translators;(3) new illocutionary force (based on perlocutionary effects) that each Translator codified into his/her own translation of Text 2. 7  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento Intercultural Model of popular translation (© From: M.G. Guido (2008) English as a Lingua Franca in Cross-cultural Immigration Domains. Bern: Peter Lang) Sequence 1a: ‘interpreting’ & ‘rendering’ processes + English back-translation Text 2, 1: Diet is a big factor in chronic disease, responsible, some say, for a third of most types of cancer. indefinite subject “some say”: ‘top-down trigger’ for translators trying to interpret the sayers’ indefinite identity. Chinese T1’s ‘think-aloud’ interpretation: [bottom-up] °“some say”° (.) [top-down] traditional Chinese me::dicine say this (.) Chinese food the::rapy give-°dak° healthy life (.) [bottom-up] “diet (.) responsible (.) for types of cancer” [top-down] yes (..) true (.) °important is° meal with ba::lance of fan and ts’ai. T1’s top-down associations of ‘unfamiliar Nutrigenomics’ with ‘familiar Chinese medicine’, then integrated as additional information in Cantonese translation: T1 (English back translation): It is claimed that diet is an important factor in chronic disease, […] (this is also maintained by traditional Chinese food therapy, based on the principle that the balance between carbohydrates – fan – and meat and vegetable dishes – ts’ai – can foster health). T1’s ‘tenor variation’ with modal can implying ‘potentiality’, not ‘possibility’ - as evident from T1’s Cantonese code-switching during ‘think-aloud’ phase: modal dak following main verb indicating deontic potentiality. Sequence 1b: ‘interpreting’ & ‘rendering’ processes + English back-translation Nigerian T2’s ‘think-aloud’ interpretation: [bottom-up] “some say” (.) °su wane ne?° (..) >diet na factor in chronic disea::se< (..) hhh “responsible for cancer” (..) [top-down] Islamic dietary laws say (.) say disea::se (.) result of weakness of heart (.) when men >dem< eat Haraam food. T2’s ELF→Hausa emotional code switching when he wonders about the ‘some say’ subject’s identity (“su wane ne?” [who are they?]) + Nigerian Pidgin English (“diet na [is a] factor in chronic disease” & “when men dem [them – plural marker] eat Haraam food”). T2 integrates top-down associations directly in translated text by adversative instead, introducing: a) an evaluative stance, marking his distance from Text-Producer’s stance; b) an affective stance, putting Islamic laws in conflict with science. T2 (English back translation): Diet is a big factor in chronic disease, responsible, some say, for a third of the main types of cancer. The Islamic dietary laws say instead that disease develops when men feed on Haraam food that is prohibited to Muslims. Sequence 1c: ‘interpreting’ & ‘rendering’ processes + English back-translation Israeli T3 reacts to “some say” by interpreting in her own socio-cultural schemata (“as we say”): Israeli T3’s ‘think-aloud’ interpretation: [top-down] exa::ctly (..) proper food purifies the body (..).hhh and keeps the mind quiet (..) >that’s in Kashrut actually< [bottom-up] “diet (.) responsible for most types of cancer” (.) that’s it (.) [top-down] if food is (.) as we say (.) treyf (.) impure (.) it it can cause (.) cancer (..) like meat when (.) >when it doesn’t come from shechitahmaybe because we m< (.) can’t digest milk. (..) maybe experiments demonstrated this. 8  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento Sequence 2b: ‘interpreting’ & ‘rendering’ processes + English back-translation Nigerian T2 disagrees with statement on ‘race shortcomings’: Nigerian T2’s ‘think-aloud’ interpretation:[bottom-up] “if you are (.) south-east Asian (.) you probably can’t” (.) [top- down] why not? (..) Hausa drink a lot of milk (.) with no pro::blem (..) hhh these scientists dem crazy men [..] I’m thinking (.) >the author had shared this< (.) my same view. Sequence 2c: ‘interpreting’ & ‘rendering’ processes + English back-translation Israeli T3 seems to ‘accept’ information with some reservations: Israeli T3’s ‘think-aloud’ interpretation: [top-down] well (..) °>milk makes digestion difficult anywaytogether block digestion< (.) and meditation (.) but (.) what’s the “relevance of race” in this? [..] “a mutation in the DNA [..] northern Europeans (.) […]” (.) how to find evidence of this? (..) Kashrut (.) developed from environmental nee::ds of our ancestors (..) hhh perhaps (.) now I should think that (.) they were (.) biological (..) °>biological needs of our race?that are balanced by< right propo::rtions of fan and ts’ai food (..) so they don’t cause health problems. (.) well (.) la (.) my same conclusions. T1’s deductive processes in trying to accept factual content he disagrees with, reflected in his efforts to make source argumentation logical to his own socio-cultural schemata by reformulating sequence 3 in translation according to his native Cantonese ‘informativity standards’. T1 integrates his top-down considerations into translated text as parenthetic sentences to increase acceptability: T1 (English back translation): […] Japanese, [cause] after relocating to the United States […], [effect] saw the levels of their cholesterol rapidly soar. The Alaskan Inuit, […] [cause] when began living in heated homes […] [effect] were subject to obesity […]. The Masai of East Africa [cause] since they abandoned their traditional diet […] [effect] have developed new health problems. (In Chinese food therapy, this lack of balance in the body due to the ingestion of inadequate food is seen as a lack of balance between the yin and yang principles. Health can be recovered only with a right input of fan and ts’ai food). [cause] The very origin of humankind [effect] is reflected in Nutrigenomics. […] Nigerian T2 keeps his distance from the scientific content he finds ‘unacceptable’ to his native socio-cultural schemata. His disappointment marked by ELF→L1 code-switching (e.g., NPE “no bi” = “it is not”): Nigerian T2’s ‘think-aloud’ interpretation:[bottom-up] “the Masai of East Africa” (.) hhh >“new health problems abandoning<.hhh traditional (.) meat, blood and milk diet (.) for co::rn and beans” [top-down] hhh that’s no true (.) blood is unlawful (.) it’s (.) no pure (..) meat must come from Halaal animals (.) °>slaughtered in accord with Islamic lawsI don’t see any genetic reason here< hhh °only environmental maybe° [..] the Masai of East Africa (.) well (..) they should have had pro::blems (.) >before passing to the corn and beans diet< °that is healthy° (.) mixing dairy and meat (.) >we say milkhig and fleishig< it’s harmful (.) °they also added blood° (.) this (.) hhh does this imply that (.) that this toxic diet was good for their race? (..)this is a scientific repo::rt (.) >I should need more< (.) more scientific evidence >for all this<. T3 uses footnotes in translation to express her stance + rhetorical question revealing how source text is not acceptable to her socio-cultural schemata: T3 (English back translation): […] Also the Masai of east Africa developed new health problems since they passed to a diet based on corn and beans abandoning their traditional meat, blood and milk diet [Translator’s Note: a very dangerous and anti-kosher diet since the simultaneous consumption of milk and meat (milkhig and fleishig) interferes with digestion and meditation. Yet, as nutrigenomics research implies, evidently this diet is appropriate to their ‘race’]. Is thus the cradle of nutrigenomics the cradle of humankind itself? Seemingly it is exactly so if it is presumed that the earliest migrations out of Africa created a series of quite different sub-groups of populations. Theoretical Background: text-types, genres & registers M.A.K. HALLIDAY: no distinction between Text-Type & Discourse-Genre;Genre defined as Register. SCHANK & ABELSON: notion of Plan similar to Text-Type (e.g., ‘Restaurant’ Plan); notion of Script similar to Discourse-Genre (e.g., language routines of ‘Restaurant’ Script). SINCLAIR & COULTHARD: notion of Steps similar to Text-Type (e.g., Introduction-Development-Conclusion); notion of Moves similar to Discourse-Genre (e.g., rhetorical routines of ‘Opening-Presentation-Expansion-Discussion-Conclusion’). VAN DIJK: notions of Frame & Macrostructure similar to Text-Type; notion of Microstructure similar to Discourse-Genre. Identification of a specialized Register a) Tourism Situated at the crossroads of western, central, and eastern Europe, Yugoslavia offers magnificent vistas of coastline, beautiful beaches, the clear waters of the Adriatic, as well as unspoilt pine forests and tranquil lakes. (from a tourist leaflet by Pan Adriatic Travel). b) Sport Meanwhile, the Canadians were hammered 15-6, 15-3, 15-9 by Cuba in the final. (from a ‘Volley’ article in 'The Guardian'). c) Architecture Salisbury chapter-house of about 1275 is centrally planned, an octagon with a central pillar and spacious windows, filling the walls entirely except for the arcade strip. (from “An Outline of European Architecture” by Pevsner). d) Medicine Store in a cool, dry place. Keep well out of reach of children. (standard medical instructions). e) Politics The Congress Party, which took an electoral hammering in 1987, faces stern new tests in coming months. (from Indian politics article in 'The Guardian'). The double function of language 1) Language as a formal structure, or code – arranged into various combinations of a series of elements so as to syntactically refer to different semantic meanings. 2) Language as a communication system – using formal elements to refer to real-world entities perceived through the senses, as well as to ‘virtual worlds of the mind’ so as to create messages with a communicative force. Types of Equivalence in Translation 1) Formal Equivalence: word-by-word literal, or semantic, translation preserving the semantic sense of the source text & dislocating it from any ‘real’ or ‘virtual’ context which would make it communicative. 2) Functional Equivalence: meaning-by-meaning stylistic translation. In specialized languages: ‘iconic’ translation of experience from source text into target text. Translation preserving the source-text communicative & contextual dimensions even by neglecting formal-semantic equivalence (‘diagrammatic translation’, or ‘experience/ discourse isomorphism’ in both pragmalinguistic codes). 10  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento Types of Equivalence Political Text (from The Language of Modern Politics by K. Hudson): “Whichever party is in power, houses will have to be built, bought, heated, and lit; people will have to be clothed, fed, doctored, and buried; children will have to be reared and educated; taxes will have to be paid; food will have to be grown and processed. The party approaches to these basic aspects of being alive can only be minimally different.” Italian translation: “Qualunque sia il partito al potere, le case dovranno essere costruite, riscaldate, ed illuminate; la gente dovrà essere vestita, nutrita, curata, e sepolta; i bambini dovranno essere allevati ed istruiti; le tasse dovranno essere pagate; il cibo dovrà essere coltivato e trattato industrialmente. Gli approcci del partito a questi aspetti basilari dell'esistenza possono differire l'uno dall'altro solo in maniera minima.” No total equivalence between the two texts: Passive Voice in both texts, but the verb-phrase “will have to be” (“avrà da essere”) does not correspond exactly to the sense of obligation of “dovrà essere” (“must be”). Deontic Modality: English “Have to” = involvement of an external, implied authoritative actor who that is different from the authority of the speaker. “Must” = recognized authority of the speaker – Italian “Dovere”: pragmatic shifting of the Modality force. Pragmatic force: Who has the obligation to carry out this political plan? The politician-speaker? Or rather this is somebody else’s obligatory commitment? The Communicative Value in Translation Pragmatic-communicative parameters in translation: a) discourse Field: topic area (specialized, scientific, etc.) in which the communicative event is collocated; b) source-text Message: logical, ‘propositional’ content of speech act; c) Sender’s Intentionality: Sender’s ‘purpose’ in producing the text (‘illocutionary force’ of the speech act); d) discourse Tone (serious, ironical, etc.); e) time-space Context of communication; f) communication Mode, or Channel (written, oral, non-verbal, multimodal, etc.); g) Participants involved in communicative discourse (Sender of the message & Receivers); h) language Code (morpho-syntactical, systemic-functional, phonological, lexical-semantic) used by Participants to produce & receive the message; i) Stylistic, or Register, choices that Participants make to convey their messages - which imply: 1) sociological variables, concerning: Participants’ role, status relationships & implied intentions underlying their messages; the way the communicative event develops in time. 2) discourse-stylistic variables, concerning the way in which participants use the Register to organize a text that shall be actualized as discourse during the communicative interaction. Translation as a Communicative Process Translator acting like a Mediator between two languages & two (or more) cultures. As such, the Translator needs two types of knowledge of the translation process: 1) Factual, conceptual knowledge; 2) Procedural knowledge Translator’s Factual, theoretical-conceptual knowledge a) knowledge of source-text language (semantic, syntactic & pragmatic knowledge); b) knowledge of the various text-types (e.g., argumentative, academic, humorous texts, etc.); c) knowledge of target language into which the source text shall be translated (semantic, syntactic & pragmatic knowledge of the specific Register); d) knowledge of the experiential field the source-text topic belongs to (economic, engineering, medicine topics, etc.); e) sociolinguistic knowledge of the real contexts underlying the source/target languages interacting in translation (i.e., knowledge of the socio-cultural conventions determining textual forms & functions – namely, the ‘genre’); f) contrastive-stylistic knowledge of the two languages, at both formal & functional levels. Translator’s Procedural, practical abilities a) analysis of source-text propositions, organized into clauses & sentences (translator’s source-language semantic knowledge); b) analysis of how clauses can be rendered synthetically in the target language so as to preserve the source-text propositional-semantic content (semantic, or literal translation); c) analysis of how the text, semantically-rendered into the target language, can be syntactically ‘reconstructed’ in such a way as to be equivalent to the source syntax (translator’s source-/target-language syntactic knowledge); d) analysis of how the new target text (reorganized semantically & syntactically through literal translation) can be deconstructed again in its clauses & sentences in order to verify if they render pragmatic information in communicative ways that are equivalent to those achieved from the source text (translator’s source-/target-language pragmatic knowledge). 11  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento Critical Discourse Analysis and Translator’s Factual & Procedural Knowledge Extract 1: Margaret Thatcher If people come to believe that the State, or their employer, or their union, owe them a living, and that, in turn, the world owes Britain a living, we shall have no confidence and no future. It must be quite clear that the responsibility is on each of us to make the full use of our talents and to care for our families. It must be clear, too, that we have a responsibility to our country to make Britain respected and successful in the world. […] Government may provide certain goods and services which cannot easily be supplied competitively, but people should accept that one of their essential tasks is to define their limitations and those of the State. (From: Margaret Thatcher, Swinton Lecture, 1979, in M. Thatcher 1989: 89) Extract 2: Tony Blair It is time to talk a new language of social justice, of what is just and unjust, fair and unfair, right and wrong. Let me tell you what that means; and what we will do. […] It is wrong that we spend more to keep families in miserable bed and breakfast accommodations than we do to build homes for them to live in and right that we allow local authorities to use capital receipts locked up by Tory dogma to give them a home and Labour will do that. […] Wrong that we live in a society where our elderly are terrified in their own homes, women can't walk in the streets at night, and children can get drugs even in the school playground, and right that we are tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime and Labour will make communities safe for people to live in. And wrong that we should tell old age pensioners that they will have to choose between paying VAT on fuel or freezing in their home, while the executives of these privatized utility companies pay themselves six figure sums for three day weeks, something no civilized society should tolerate and a Labour government will not tolerate it. (From T. Blair's Acceptance Speech, 1994, London: Labour Party Public Information Office) Extract 1: Margaret Thatcher (right-wing Tory perspective): “We” = first-person plural pronoun: people/citizens responsible for quality life; “must” = speaker’s authority in imposing her view; “people should accept” = first- person→third-person shift: detachment (she excludes herself from the inclusive “we”) + moral obligation (should); “Government may provide” = third-person detached refusal of responsibility – just possibility, not commitment in improving people’s conditions. Extract 2: Tony Blair (left-wing New Labour perspective): “We” = first-person plural pronoun: Labour Government’s responsibility – later disambiguated (“Labour will do that”) “will” = first-person commitment to a social responsibility “wrong that we should tell old age pensioners” = obligation felt as immoral (should) “no civilized society should tolerate” = moral obligation not to tolerate. Translator’s applications of Factual & Procedural Knowledge Popular text on Urban Planning (George Orwell’s review on the Reilly Project): Supposing that it could actually be put into operation, the advantages of the plan are obvious. Living around a green belt would almost certainly promote sociability, and it is an important detail that each of the Community Centres would only be serving about 1,000 people, all of whom might be expected to know one another by sight. The green spaces, the absence of smoke, and the ever- running hot water would make for health and cleanliness, and the children would grow up in the constant society of others of the same age. Possible Italian translation: Supponiamo che ciò possa essere realmente messo in opera, i vantaggi del progetto sono ovvi. Vivere intorno ad una cintura di verde incoraggerebbe quasi certamente la vita sociale, ed è un dettaglio importante il fatto che ciascuno dei Centri Comunitari servirebbe soltanto circa 1000 persone, dalle quali ci si potrebbe aspettare che si conoscano tutte di vista. Gli spazi verdi, l'assenza di fumo, e l'acqua calda sempre a disposizione favorirebbero la salute e la pulizia, e i bambini crescerebbero costantemente in compagnia di altri della loro stessa età. Analysis of the translator’s comunicative competence 1) Grammatical competence: presupposes a knowledge of the rules of the language code, vocabulary, morphology, syntax & pronunciation included (i.e., the necessary knowledge & ability to understand & express the literal semantic sense of the clauses and sentences of a text): e.g.: “ever-running hot water”: technical expression by formal left- branching structure rendered as “l’acqua calda sempre a disposizione” (right-branching “the hot water always running”). 2) Sociolinguistic competence: presupposes the knowledge & ability to produce & understand utterances appropriately with reference to the social contexts in which they occur (i.e., knowledge of the social limits imposed by the topic, by the social status of the participants in the communicative events, by the interaction purposes, etc.) e.g.: “Supposing that it could”: source-text Conditional rendered into Italian Subjunctive “Supponiamo che ciò possa”. “Supposing” = non- finite form (gerund) vs. “Supponiamo” = finite form (present simple), indicating a stronger & direct Sender/Receiver relationship; “Living” & “Vivere” = both non-finite forms (gerund & infinitive). 3) Discursive competence: presupposes the knowledge of putting together the formal & semantic aspects of a language so as to produce written & oral texts of various genres. This implies the creation of: a) a formal cohesion in the produced text (the way in which clauses & sentences are structurally interconnected to facilitate the semantic interpretation of the text); b) a functional coherence in discourse (the relations among the different meanings in a text, the communicative functions and the social meanings attributed to the text). 12  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento 4) Strategic competence: presupposes the mastery of the communicative strategies employed to improve communication or to compensate communication breaks (due to limiting factors, such as insufficiency in the other competences). e.g.: persuasion strategies inducing collective desire by imagination – i.e.: “Supposing…”, “Living around a green belt…”. Interpretation & Translation: Lexical Phase Translator’s initial reading/ listening requires the cognitive activation of the ‘lexeme recognition system’ capable of a) distinguishing between: words from non-words (e.g., punctuation, exclamations, etc.); lexical words (with semantic content) from ‘functional’ or ‘grammatical’ words. b) identifying conventional concepts that each lexeme denotes. Specialized lexicon (frequent in scientific language), characterized by: monoreferentiality in denotating a concept; clear iconic relation between lexeme & denoted concept; terminological generalization (& standardization) in science often occurring through affixation (i.e., the ‘–ite’ suffix in Italian medical language, as in ‘epatite’, ‘polmonite’, etc.); acronyms & abbreviations. Interpretation & Translation: Syntactic Phase Translator’s cognitive processing of words analyzed in sequences of clauses & sentences checking the syntactic correctness. In specialized registers, grammar structures are characterized by: a) conciseness & simplification; b) affixation; c) pre-modification (left-branching); d) syntagmatic nominalization (post-noun modification); “unwound electric wire” vs. “electric wire which is not wound”; e) relative clause reduced into the non-finite form of present participle (“a lead is an extension prolonging an electric wire” vs. “a lead is an extension that prolongs an electric wire”) ; f) total omission of the relative clause, replaced by the non-finite form of the past participle (“the electric wire plugged in the socket” vs. “the electric wire which is plugged in the socket”). The syntactic correctness of sentences is verified through the cognitive activation of two ‘files’ of lexical & structural frequencies. Interpretation & Translation: Pragmatic Phase Translator’s analysis of communicative functions of a text (message & purposes) through the cognitive activation of a pragmatic processing. Two functions of pragmatic processing: a) to identify the Thematic structure of a text; b) to provide a stylistic analysis of a text. Thematic structure (Theme) regards the tone (formal, informal) & communicative value of the text so as to establish the ‘purpose’ of its production (i.e., the Sender’s intentionality, or illocutionary force). In specialized texts aimed at successful communication, Thematic parts of a text (those containing already ‘given’ information, shared with receivers) alternate with Rhematic parts (containing ‘new’ information) in an unmarked, iconic Theme-Rheme organization. Interpretation & Translation: Semantic Representation & Rendering Phases ‘Semantic Representation’ Phase: Source-text analysis provides an initial translation, but not into another language, but into a cognitive, semantic representation of its structures, topics, registers & functions. ‘Rendering’ (Translation) Phase: Converting the semantic representation of the source text into an equivalent text in the target language. This ‘rendering’ process is opposite to the process of analysis: the translator activates in his/her mind first ‘pragmatic’ processes, then ‘semantic’ ones and, finally, the syntactic’ processes in the target language. Pragmatic Equivalence in Translation Pragmatic Equivalence in translation concerns the stylistic rendering of a text into another text formulated not simply in a different language, but also in discursive ways that are culturally different from the translator’s native schemata. To obtain a natural & fluent rendering of the translated text, the translator needs (a) to ‘filter’ the original text through his/her own schemata (i.e., his/her own communicative-linguistic experience & culture) & then (b) to reformulate it in a way that is pragmatically coherent to such schemata by using the target language. A Stylistic Translation is a pragmatic equivalent of the source text when the translator succeeds in rendering into a different target language the effects that a text has produced on his/her own sensibility – & thus on his/her own schemata interpreting the text. Translating a text through a procedure of Pragmatic Equivalence means: a) to reproduce both the formal aspects (syntax) & the semantic content of the source text (formal equivalence). Formal equivalence focuses on the form & content of the message – e.g., poetry-to-poetry, clause-to-clause, concept-to-concept correspondence (Nida 1974); b) to preserve the original source-text style, or to adopt a different style. To preserve or abandon the source-text format (e.g., to translate a poem as prose); c) to preserve the historical-stylistic dimension of the original text, or to render it into a contemporary stylistic form (e.g., to translate Chaucer’s ‘Middle English’ into Dante’s ‘volgare’, or in contemporary Italian). Or rather to render the text into a register variation, a dialect, which could reflect the variations in the language code used by the translator. b) & c) cases correspond to what Nida defines as dynamic equivalence, based on the equivalent effect principle (e.g., to translate Homer in contemporary English prose as the epic form in ancient Greece is equivalent to the value & significance of prose in modern Europe); d) to produce a text which looks like an ‘original’ one, not instead like a translation directly equivalent to the original source text (e.g., Umberto Eco’s creative translations of Queneau’s ‘stylistic exercises’); e) to add or omit words & clauses, or to translate the original text, word- for-word. 13  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento Stylistic Rendering of Pragmatic Equivalence Translator’s task to produce a stylistic rendering of the source-text illocutionary force as pragmatically equivalent to the perlocutionary effects that such a text produced on the translator’s own linguacultural schemata. Translator’s achievement of this objective through some translation techniques: 1) loan words: the reproduction of the exact original term in translation (e.g., weekend in Italian texts); 2) calque: the word-for-word linear substitution of elements of a language for those of another one (e.g., weekend translated into fine settimana); 3) semantic transposition: the rendering of elements of a language into those of another one which are semantically, but not formally, equivalent (e.g., perhaps, or forse, to translate the Arabic equivalent of inshallah, meaning se Dio vorrà, God willing. The semantic transposition of idioms may be meaningless as idiomatic sentences have no sense when literally translated from one language (& culture) into another (e.g., menar il can per l'aia literally in English, leading the dog around the threshing floor, to be translated into the equivalent idiomatic sentence beating about the bush, literally, battere intorno al cespuglio – or the paradox: stai in campana = stay in the bell); 4) literal translation: often used to preserve in the target text the ‘exotic’ effect that a foreign text generally produces on the translator (e.g., inshallah literally translated into God willing, rather than perhaps); 5) pragmatic equivalence: opposite to literal translation as it searches for the most natural & unmarked pragmatic equivalent options to translate unmarked expressions in the source language. In this way, s/he reproduces in translation the natural & familiar effect that the source text has on the receivers from the linguacultural context that produced the source text; 6) modulation: translating an unmarked source-text sentence into an equivalent unmarked target-text sentence, even though this process would entail a change in structure & perspective (e.g., no parking zone → divieto di parcheggio); 7) adaptation: functional-pragmatic compensation activated when between the source-text linguacultural background and the target-text one there are such deep differences that do not allow any pragmatic equivalent options (e.g., buon appetito → enjoy your meal – literally goditi il pasto); 8) untranslatability: (a) linguistic untranslatability of syntactic structures; (b) cultural untranslatability, or absence in the target-language culture of a socio-cultural event equivalent to the one represented in the source text (e.g., burro / butter = different use & perception of it in two different linguacultural contexts). English as a ‘lingua franca’ in cross-cultural immigration domains: L1-transfer in journey reports by West- African immigrants. © From: M.G. Guido (2008) English as a Lingua Franca in Cross-cultural Immigration Domains. Bern: Peter Lang. M.G. Guido (2018) English as a Lingua Franca in Migrants’ Trauma Narratives. London: Palgrave Macmillan. English as a ‘Lingua Franca’ Conventional definition: English is today’s global ‘lingua franca’ for international communication. Common belief: grammar of Standard English & native-English communicative behaviours are shared norms in intercultural communication across the world (e.g., in the fields of economics, politics, law, environment, science and in every domain where Western culture exerts its influence over other non-Western civilizations). Covert implication: No acknowledgement of the communicative needs of other non-native – and non-Western – speakers of English. Results: serious socio-political and personal consequences, particularly when immigration is involved. Ethnographic Analysis Objective: Ethnographic Method exploring the cognitive and communicative processes involved in production and reception of discourse in English as lingua franca (ELF). Ethnographic Contexts: Professional domains where non-native speakers of English (i.e., Western experts and non- Western immigrants) interact in multicultural specialized contexts. (e.g., centres for legal advice & medical assistance to non-EU immigrants / asylum seekers, multiethnic educational workplaces, gate-keeping institutional situations). Fieldwork Procedure: (a) No reference to degrees of conformity of these interactions to conventional English specialized uses; (b) Investigation of ‘unconventional’ discourse between different socio-cultural and linguistic groups of participants in the interactions. Linguistic Inaccessibility & Conceptual Unavailability Cross-cultural interaction dynamics: Step 1: Experts try to impose (intentionally or involuntarily) on immigrants linguistic uses and discourse conventions that are typical of their own ‘Western’ specialized background. Step 2: Non-Western immigrants find these uses not only cognitively and linguistically inaccessible, but also conceptually unavailable because they find it difficult to understand specialized concepts and discourse behaviours that are alien to their native socio-cultural and linguistic schemata. Schemata: background knowledge of culturally-determined linguistic and social behaviours stored in the minds of the members of a speech community (Carrell 1983) and informing the grammar structures of their L1. 14  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento Case studies Enquiry into the ways in which: a) Western experts’ ELF is interpreted by non-Western immigrants with reference to their own L1 linguistic uses & native socio-cultural schemata; b) Non-Western immigrants’ ELF (including pidgin & creole English varieties) is interpreted by experts with reference to their own L1 linguistic uses & native ‘Western’ schemata. Result: situations of intercultural miscommunication. L1→L2 Transfer Transfer of the L1 semantic, syntactic and pragmatic structures of the participants in a cross-cultural interaction into the ELF they use. Conventional notion of ‘L1→L2 transfer’: in Interlanguage studies (Selinker 1992) it justifies ‘syntactic errors’ produced by non-native speakers of a language (Corder 1981). Revised notion of ‘L1→L2 transfer’: involvement of participants’ native schemata informing their L1 and interfering with their ELF use in cross-cultural interaction. ELF grammar: (a) not a gradual approximation of L2-English to Standard English as a native language (ENL); (b) not ‘interlanguage errors’; (c) not pidgin & creole ‘deviating varieties’ spoken by ‘uneducated’ non-native speakers; but: ELF as autonomous ‘diatopic’ English variations with the same value as the ‘Standard English’ variety. ENL is not the authentic variety of English setting the standards for the evaluation of other syntactic, semantic and pragmatic ‘variations’ produced by non-native speakers, but ELF is the non-native speakers’ authentication of English, as they ‘appropriate’ it according to their L1 socio-cultural and experiential schemata. Language Typologies Misunderstanding in ELF use is: (a) less frequent when the two participants’ L1s are typologically similar in their cognitive, semantic & syntactic structures (Greenberg 1973), so they converge and are perceived as familiar because shared by both participants; (b) more frequent when the two participants’ L1s are typologically different, so that the L1- transfer in a participant’s ELF variation is perceived as unfamiliar by another participant speaking a typologically- different L1 informing the different ELF variation s/he uses. L1-Transfer in Journey Reports by West-African Immigrants Case studies: focus on miscommunication in institutional interviews aimed at assessing the rights of undocumented migrants in Western Countries. Research objectives: cross-cultural misinterpretation may occur when (Italian) interviewers fail to understand: (a) the native syntax reflected in the pidgin/creole varieties of the 'lingua franca' (English) used by migrants; (b) the native semantic ways by which events are differently conceptualized and grammaticalized in the 'lingua franca' in use. Case-study focus: Nigerian Pidgin English Nigerian Pidgin English Phonetic and Syntactic Structures NPE transcriptions reproduce phonetic characteristics of African speakers: (a) interdental fricatives // and // replaced by corresponding alveolar stops /t/ and /d/; (b) elimination of reduced vowels, signalled by the indefinite schwa /Ə/ sound; (c) addition of pronoun 'dem' ('them') after a noun, signalling plural; (d) Use of 'all-purposes' preposition 'for' (fo): African indigenous languages have not evolved from Indo-European languages, but from Afro-Asiatic ones. So, they do not share the same movement/position conceptualization with the Standard English language; (e) Addition of Pre-Verbal Particles to signal Tense and Aspect in NPE. Pre-Verbal Particles in Nigerian Pidgin English: syntactic structures Past Simple pre-verbal particle: bin Singular Plural 1st person: a bin wok (I worked) wi bin wok 2nd person: yu bin wok una bin wok 3rd person: i/in bin wok dem bin wok Past Perfect pre-verbal particles: bin don Singular Plural 1st p.: a bin don wok (I had worked) wi bin don wok 2nd p.: yu bin don wok una bin don wok 3rd p.: i/in bin don wok dem bin don wok Present Simple Continuous: a de wok (I am working) Past Simple Continuous: a bin de wok (I was working) Present Perfect Continuous: a don de wok (I have been [or started] working) Past Perfect Continuous: a bin don de wok (I had been [or started] working) Future Simple: a go wok (I will work) Future Simple Continuous: a go de wok (I will be working) Future Perfect: a go don wok (I will have worked) Future Perfect Continuous: a go don de wok (I will be [will have started] working) No subject-particle inversion for the interrogative forms. 15  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido - Corso di Lingua e Traduzione Inglese - Università del Salento Semantic and Pragmatic Applications Case study: interviews to West-African illegal immigrants carried out by Italian intercultural mediators using English as ‘lingua franca’. Analysis: journey reports by two Nigerian immigrants suspected of withholding information about the identities of the smugglers who helped them cross the borders. Research Focus: Different language typologies in contact: (a) Nigerian immigrants use native ‘Ergative’ structures to describe events; (b) Italian intercultural mediators use native ‘Accusative’ structures of events to interpret immigrants' reports. Research Hypothesis: Italians' misinterpretation of Nigerians' journey reports, considered as uncooperative ‘reticent accounts’ of events because of different linguistic structures used by Africans. Theoretical Background: Accusativity vs. Ergativity Two cognitive-grammar notions: Accusativity & Ergativity, differently organizing the report of events in typologically different languages (Langacker 1991) Accusativity: Most European languages (English and Italian included) are Accusative languages (Greenberg 1973). Accusative languages: characterized by Transitivity, which is an organization of events that traces the development of an action: from its initial cause, induced by the ‘energy’ of an animate Agent represented by the grammatical Subject (tagged by Nominative case) to the ultimate effect of the action, represented by the transitive Object (tagged by Accusative case). An Active ‘cause-effect’ construction foregrounds the Agent in Subject position, emphasizing its responsibility in determining the action. Active Accusative clause ( transitive): The smuggler sailed the rubber dinghy Subject: Agent Object cause effect A Passive ‘effect-cause’ construction places the Agent in the background, or totally omits it. It diminishes the Agents' responsibility. Passive Accusative clause ( transitive): The rubber dinghy was sailed [by the smuggler] Object  [Agent] effect  [cause] Passive-like construction - in Italian ‘Reflexive Passive’: inanimate Object placed in Subject position, leaving the Agent – who does the action - unspecified. Effect: inanimate Object looks like the ‘cause’, or ‘the doer’ of the action: La barca si è fermata (The boat stopped) Ergativity: typical of Proto-Afroasiatic languages at the roots of many native languages of Africa. Ergative construction of a clause: the Object - not the Agent - represented as the ‘animate cause' of the action. (a) The Object is actually only a Medium, an inanimate entity through which the action is actualized (Halliday 1994); (b) Absolute Construal of events (Langacker 1991): emphasis on the Medium not in a Transitive-Object position, but in an Intransitive-Subject position. Ergative clause: The rubber dinghy sailed Medium Cause of the action Intransitive Subject Action as ‘self-caused’, without the 'external cause' of an animate Agent. Origins of Ergativity Ergative constructions: (a) do not deliberately leave Agents unspecified (as in Passive); (b) still evident in Central Saharian and West-African languages, characterized by the speakers' high emotional involvement in their reports of past events. (DeLancey 1981); (c) evolved from primordial experience of perceiving natural inanimate objects as animate agents with their own autonomous force controlling people’s lives; (d) describe past facts as 'epic events', reporting unsettling sensations of being ‘at the mercy’ of natural phenomena (often perceived as hostile to human beings) - reflected in today's indigenous African animist belief that every natural element has its own ‘spirit’. 16  © Prof.ssa Maria Grazia Guido – Lingua e Traduzione Inglese – Università del Salento Case-Study Methodology & Subjects Methodology: ‘Move’ Analysis (e.g., Elicitation; Preferred / Dispreferred Information Moves) aimed at identifying if: (a) Nigerian immigrants’ oral reports of past events in NPE contained ergative structures; (b) Italian intercultural mediators associated African Ergativity with their own uses of passive-like constructions in Italian. Consequently, they misinterpreted immigrants’ reports as deliberate attempts to shift responsibility away from the Agents (the smugglers) who made their illegal journey possible. English ‘flexible’ clause structures allows the expression of Ergativity. Subjects: (a) two Italian intercultural mediators conducting and tape-recording the interviews in their own ELF variation; (b) two West-African male asylum seekers from Eastern Nigeria, claiming that their native language was Igbo (from Kwa group, Niger-Congo languages) - an Ergative language. The Nigerian men spoke Nigerian Pidgin English (NPE), a not-yet-standardized language, widely used for interactional/commercial purposes in Nigeria - perceived as an ELF variation in Italy. Exchange 1 - Transcription (1) IM1: who::: (.) assisted you:: (.) in the journey to Italy? (2) AS1: won old ship bin bo::ard os many many, >na wahala every wie obin don dry finishmek water cold cold bin break against di boat<.hhh water don de kom for di boat every wie, no use di hand dem bin de throw dat water out, out, out, o o.= (3) IM2: =sorry (.), d’you mean that the pilot stopped the boat in the mi::ddle of the big sea? (.) or that the boat (.) uh b- was stopped (.) itself (.) to him (.) (4) AS2: di boat.hh di all boat bin stop (.) for di sea (.) >big big