Monacelli-Meta[1], translation
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
A tightrope with a net
C. Monacelli
*
Abstract
This is a small-scale, corpus-based study on the effects of lexical repetition, as a cohesive
device, on textual coherence. Following Hoey’s work on patterns of lexis (1991), we
introduce categories of repetition to consider for ‘automatic’ processing using a
concordancer program in order to produce summaries based on clusters of lexical
repetition sequences, thus obtaining an outline of a text’s structure. The study’s findings
are extended to the analysis of parallel texts: two professional translations of corpus text 1
are examined using the same procedure.
1. Introduction
In his book entitled
Patterns of Lexis
(1991), Michael Hoey investigates the text-
organizing function of lexical repetition. He argues it is possible to identify marginal and
central sentences in a passage through a systematic analysis of lexis in text. By eliminating
marginal sentences and combining central ones, he claims to develop “a methodology for the
production of readable abridgements of texts that is capable of some degree of automation”
(
op. cit.
:3). In terms of translation, summarizing a text requires us to pay attention to its
structure, which then becomes “an important guide to decisions regarding what should or
should not appear in the derived text” (Hatim and Mason 1990:185). The present study has
three aims: to explore the second part of Hoey’s claim, namely the degree of automation
possible in the production of text abridgements using his model; to analyze the role of lexical
cohesion in fostering textual coherence; to consider the possibility of using Hoey’s model to
assess parallel texts in translation studies.
1
The study of Hoey’s work stems from interest in adapting his model for use in the analysis
of lexical patterns in oral texts. His work, however, strictly involves written texts, based on
the analysis of complex lexical patterns running across sentences to form nets. And this, of
course, represents the first problem in even attempting to adapt such a model. Indeed Hoey’s
use of the sentence as a unit inspired the title of this essay. A sentence – like a tightrope – has
a crisply defined beginning and end. The sentence as a unit of study is similar to walking a
tightrope: even though it is common practice to write in sentences, people don’t talk in
sentences, they don’t think in sentences, nor do they usually walk tightropes. The implication
here is clearly one of risk; unless there is a net. And this is where Hoey’s model becomes of
interest.
2
The corpus examined consists of 10 texts extracted from academic textbooks in English
that are classified, according to the Dewey Decimal Classification System, as belonging to the
social sciences (300). We analyze how an introduction develops the textbook’s themes once it
is abridged, that is, once it has been processed using those features of Hoey’s lexical
*
Libera Università degli Studi “S. Pio V”.
1
In §8 we discuss research carried out by Klaudy and Károly (2000) who also applied an adapted version of
Hoey’s model of lexical repetition to the assessment of parallel texts.
2
We wish to adapt Hoey’s model for use in the analysis of oral texts in simultaneous interpreting, where Gile
assumes “interpreters work near saturation level (the ‘
tightrope
hypothesis’)” (1999:157, my emphasis).
1
repetition model that lend themselves to automatic processing. Two professional translations
of corpus text 1 are also examined using Hoey’s model of lexical repetition.
We begin by introducing Hoey’s views on lexical cohesion and textual coherence (§2), and
examine a text’s ‘organization’ and ‘structure’ (§3). Hoey’s taxonomy of lexical repetition
categories considered for ‘automatic’ processing is presented using examples from corpus text
1 (table 1). Results are examined (§5, §6) and findings are then extended to possible
applications in the assessment of parallel texts (§7). A general discussion weighs the values
and pitfalls of this approach (§8) and we offer suggestions for the development of future work
(§9).
2. Lexical cohesion and textual coherence
How cohesion works and how it serves to explain what happens in a text depends largely
on the literature espoused for these descriptions. Perhaps the most widely read work on
cohesion is Halliday and Hasan’s
Cohesion in English
(1976). For them, ‘texture’
(organization) consists of relations among items in a text which they call ‘cohesive ties’
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976:2-3), and they establish five classes of cohesion: conjunction,
reference, substitution, ellipsis, and lexical cohesion (
ibid
.:29). The authors further distinguish
two subclasses under lexical cohesion: reiteration and collocation. Michael Hoey specifies
that – with the exception of conjunction – these classes of cohesive ties are all ways of
repeating (Hoey, 1991:6). He is quick to point to the fuzzy boundaries between different
forms of reiteration and stresses how, nonetheless, all types of lexical reiteration, along with
collocations, establish
lexical
relations and only in a second instance do they mark textual
ones (Hoey, 1991:6-7).
As he states his case for the importance of lexical cohesion, Hoey compares the frequency
of the different ties Halliday and Hasan find in their own analyses and indicates that lexical
cohesion alone accounts for nearly 50% of all ties. He mentions, however, that lexical items
may form a relationship with more than one other item, thus showing how Halliday and
Hasan’s data has not accorded lexical cohesion the importance it deserves. He concludes that
“lexical cohesion is the only type of cohesion that regularly forms multiple relationships
(though occasionally reference does so too). If this is taken into account, lexical cohesion
becomes the dominant mode of creating texture” (
ibid
.: 9).
When discussing cohesion as a device that establishes relations between grammatical or
lexical items in a text, the question of textual coherence inevitably surfaces. As Hoey points
out, cohesion is not synonymous with coherence for many scholars (cf. Widdowson, 1978;
Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981). He himself assumes cohesion to be a property of the text and
coherence to concern the reader’s evaluation of a text and suggests looking at text patterning,
created by lexical cohesion, which relates to the ways in which topics interrelate in their
development. Hoey uses the notion of ‘topic shift’, signaled by lexical clusters forming bonds,
as an
indication
of text structure. In fact, he treats the issue of structure in text as open for
debate and concedes, however, that “there still may be structure in a looser or different sense”
(
ibid
.: 29).
Echoing a systems theory perspective and a view at the basis of practically all work on
discourse,
3
Hoey reminds the reader that sentences have a meaning together that is more than
the sum of their separate parts. In essence, this is the view characterizing the paradigm shift
throughout the 20
th
century in other branches of science, a process-oriented view.
3. Text organization and discourse structure
3
cf. Hatim and Mason, 1990:5-6, 111.
2
Systems thinking was pioneered by biologists who emphasized the view of living
organisms as integrated wholes. The basic tension is one between the parts and the whole: the
essential properties of an organism or living system are properties of the whole, which is more
than the sum of its parts. The paradigm shift involves contextual thinking, putting phenomena
into the context of a larger whole. An emphasis on process thinking began making its way
into several realms: beginning with von Bertalanffy in the ‘30s, who defined as ‘open
systems’ any living structure that depended on flows of energy and resources,
4
and continuing
with the cybernetic movement of the ‘40s which introduced the concepts of feedback loops
and dynamic systems (Capra, 1997:58-64). But it wasn’t until the ‘70s that Ilya Prigogine
used the term ‘dissipative structures’ to describe the new thermodynamics of open systems as
combining the stability of structure with the fluidity of change (
op. cit.
:180).
Around the same period, the beginning of the ‘70s, Maturana and Varela advanced their
theory of autopoiesis, which essentially views living organisms as operationally closed
entities, which subordinate all changes to the maintenance of their own organization. Living
organisms have a distinct structure, which is continuously recreated through interactive
feedback cycles (Maturana & Varela, 1980; 1998). In his seminal work entitled
The Web of
Life
(1997), Fritjof Capra brings together the concepts of autopoiesis and dissipative
structures and defines the link as one between organization and structure, cognition – as
process – being the inextricable link.
Dissipative structures call to mind the notion of intertextuality that problematizes the idea
of a text as having boundaries, the boundaries of texts being permeable. The semiotic concept
of intertextuality, as introduced by Kristeva, refers to texts in terms of two axes: a
horizontal
axis
connecting the author and reader of a text, and a
vertical axis
, which connects the text to
other texts (Kristeva, 1980:69). She argues that rather than confining our attention to the
structure of a text we should study its 'structuration' (how the structure comes into being, or its
construction). Intertextuality here is considered as access to texts via our knowledge of
encountered texts "in a continual process of reconstruction of our individual and social
realities" (Seidlhofer, 2000:211).
Hatim and Mason distinguish intertextuality as “an ideal testing ground for basic semiotic
notions in practical pursuits such as translating and interpreting” (1990:121). They illustrate
how intertextual chains permeate texts, forming “strands of reference to previous knowledge
enshrined in texts we have encountered” (
ibid.
:123) which makes it truly a dynamic property
of texts. They mention ‘active’ and ‘passive’ intertextual links: active links activate
knowledge and belief systems beyond the text itself; passive links aim to maintain a text’s
internal coherence (1990:123-124). Examples of these forms of intertextuality are taken from
corpus text 1 (sample 3) which has a total of 17 sentences. Sentences are numbered for
convenience of reference and the text’s original division into paragraphs has been maintained.
Sample 1 Corpus text 1
1
This book is a textbook based on original research and develops
an important thesis.
2
It concerns the globalization of social
policy and the socialization of global politics.
3
The book
demonstrates first that national social policy is increasingly
determined by global economic competition and by the social policy
of international organizations such as the World Bank, and
secondly that the substance of social policy is increasingly
transnational.
4
Global social policy is constituted of global
social redistribution, global social regulation and global social
provision and empowerment.
5
This textbook reviews for students
the state of the world's welfare in terms of how far human needs
4
cf. Bertalanffy (1950).
3
are met.
6
Trends in global inequity, and diverse experiences of
different kinds of welfare regime North, South, East and West, are
summarized.
7
The social policies of international organizations
are reviewed systematically for the first time.
8
The book is also
a report of two major research projects which focused on the
making of post-communist social policy and the role played in this
by international organizations in Bulgaria, Hungary, Ukraine and
the post-Yugoslav countries.
9
The research which documents the
global discourse taking place within and between international
organizations about the future for welfare policy reinforces the
thesis concerning the globalization of social policy.
10
The book is primarily addressed to students of social policy
but it is also intended that it should be read by other colleagues
and students in academia, government and international
organizations.
11
Development studies specialists would benefit
from the comparisons and connections made between social policy in
developing and developed countries.
12
Students of international
organizations and international relations will find the book
informs the debates concerning the future of these areas of study.
13
Economists should read it because it demonstrates that choices
between economic and social policies are a matter not only of
mathematical modelling but of political values.
14
Political
scientists should read it because it demonstrates that the locus
of key political decisions lies far from national governments and
inside global banking organizations.
15
Soviet and East European
area studies specialists should read it to appreciate the
importance of external influences on the region.
16
Sociologists
should read it as an example of an attempt to study the social
relations of power and the nature of discursive practices at a
global level.
17
Social policy makers and their advisers should
read it to locate the institutions within which it might be most
appropriate to apply their skills.
A cursory reading of this non-narrative text brings to light several characteristics: a parallel
structure in sentence 2 with a transposition of parts of speech (globalization/social,
socialization/global); a fair amount of lexical repetition, e.g. ‘global’ repeated no less than
four times in sentence 4 and ‘should read it’ in sentences 13 to 17. Both examples cited
involving repetition are cases of passive intertextuality. Active intertextual strands within the
text involve the ‘World Bank’ (international organizations, mathematical modelling, banking
organizations, etc.), ‘post-communist social policy’ (Bulgaria, Hungary, etc.).
5. Methodology and corpus
Table 1 lists Hoey’s categories of lexical repetition that best lend themselves to processing
using a concordancer. Examples refer to corpus text 1 (sample 3). We have not considered the
categories of simple partial paraphrase (after Hoey), substitution, co-reference, and ellipsis,
which require a great deal more ‘manual’ processing/analysis.
Table 1 Lexical repetition categories considered for automatization
category examples
simple repetition
social
(sentences 2 and 3);
government
(sentence 10),
governments
(sentence 14)
complex repetition
politics
(sentence 2),
political
(sentence 13) ;
important
(sentence 1),
importance
(sentence15)
simple mutual paraphrase
book
(sentence 1),
textbook
(sentence 5)
antonymous complex paraphrase
national
(sentence 3),
international
(sentence 7)
other complex paraphrase
link triangle:
national
(sentence 3),
international
(sentence
7),
global
(sentence 2)
4
There are many shades of grey in the establishment of simple and complex repetition, as Hoey
himself points out, and he offers a series of decision-making flow charts (
op. cit.
:58-60) as a
guide in seeking out phenomena which are worth investigating in a text. He explains how
sentences come to be viewed as being
central
or
marginal
by the number of lexical links they
have with other sentences. The criterion used in establishing links in a long text may be
difficult to control, but Hoey adds an important constraint,
if a lexical item appears for the third (or more) time in a text, it is only necessary
to establish a contextual connection with
one
of the previous occurrences for the
item to be treated as forming a repetition link with
all
the previous occurrences.
(
op. cit.
:57, original emphasis)
The corpus examined,
5
was compiled by randomly selecting textbooks in English off the
Ruffilli Library
6
shelves in the social sciences section. The texts are introductions to the
volumes they precede and, as such, it is safe to say that readers would expect these texts to
fulfill an introductory function and look to them for guidance in terms of what lies ahead in
the textbook, following the principle of
relevance
.
7
These introductions appear in the volumes
within the context of other pages in the book which include information such as: title,
author/s, editor/s, publishing house, date, notes on copyright, table of contents, dedication,
acknowledgements. The reader is thus in a position of (possibly) knowing what the book is
about or, in any case, it is presumed that s/he reads an introduction for the purpose of
confirming (or disconfirming) any expectations s/he may have in relation to the textbook,
and/or that the introduction serves to create further expectations concerning the entire volume.
The corpus texts come under different names in each volume. Three texts are called
‘introduction’ (texts 2, 5, 7), four are a ‘preface’ (texts 1, 3, 6, 8, 10), and two are labelled
‘foreword’ (texts 4, 9). Since they were chosen as representative of short introductions to
textbooks, which inform readers of the book’s contents, we excluded any acknowledgements,
if they were included as part of the text.
5.1 Preparation of texts
Texts were transcribed and saved in ‘.txt’ format. This removed their original graphical
layout (paragraph divisions, indentation, skipped lines, etc.). Sentences were marked with a
full stop, followed by a space and a capital letter, e.g. ‘. M’. The concordancer
Concordance
is programmed,
8
by default, to read lines as they appear on a ‘.txt’ file, hence our text files
consist of a series of single sentences, one below the other, with no spaces between them, nor
any indentation. Indented quotes in texts are treated as part of the preceding sentence, and
include the citation (e.g. ‘(Gramsci in Booth, 1991:1)’), corpus text 5). Authors use citations
to make an overt, intertextual link for the reader. In terms of cohesion they are examples of
how an author attempts to use intertextuality to enhance coherence for the reader since, as
discussed, intertextual links are necessary for a text to be cognitively perceived as coherent.
The program also disregards any punctuation unless otherwise specified, which means it
considers as single lexical items those which are hyphenated (e.g. ‘self-access’ or ‘intra-
textual’) and any compounded forms with a slash (e.g. ‘type/token’).
5
Appendix 1 lists the volumes in our corpus.
6
University of Bologna library, in Forlì.
7
cf. Sperber & Wilson (1986),
Relevance: communication and cognition
. Oxford: Blackwell.
8
Concordance,
version 2.0.0, 18 December 2000, copyright © R.J.C. Watt 1999, 2000.
5
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]