The Importance of
Teaching Cohesion in
Translation on a Textual Level
A Comparison of test scores
before and after teaching
By Aiwei Shi
M.A. in English Linguistics and Literature
Xinzhou Teachers University
Shanxi, China
shi_aiwei@hotmail.com
Get the List of 4,400+ Translation Agencies Now! No Recurring Membership Fees!
Abstract:
The article discusses the importance of teaching cohesion in translation on the textual
level. Test scores for a school year of Class One before and after teaching are compared
to illustrate the point.
I. The importance of the knowledge of cohesion
Each language has its own patterns to
convey the interrelationships of persons ad events; in no language may these patterns be
ignored, if the translation is to be understood by its readers (Callow,1974:30). The topic
of cohesion ... has always appeared to be the most useful constituent of discourse
analysis or text linguistics applicable to translation. (Newmark,1987:295)
II. What is cohesion
Cohesion is the
network of lexical, grammatical, and other relations which link various parts of a text.
|
Cohesion is the network of lexical,
grammatical, and other relations which link various parts of a text. These relations or
ties organize and, to some extent, create a text, for instance, by requiring the reader to
interpret words and expressions by reference to other words and expressions in the
surrounding sentences and paragraphs. Cohesion is a surface relation and it connects
together the actual words and expressions that we can see or hear.
Halliday and Hasan identify five main
cohesive devices in English: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and
lexical cohesion.
III. Hypothesis
As is well-known, Chinese and English
belong to different language families, and it is only natural that they may pose great
difficulties and challenges for translators, especially for beginners such as my students.
The formal and serious teaching of cohesion might to a great extent enhance the students'
consciousness in translating between the two languages.
IV. Description of the experiment
- Participants
The participants in the experiment were the
third-year students in Xinzhou Teachers' College, where I was appointed by the department
to teach the course of Translation (theory and practice).
- Method
Although I had been reading translation literature rather
extensively, I noticed a high proportion of it was of theoretical nature and thus was not
very helpful or valuable to my students none of whom were interested in pure theoretical
study. They showed their earnest interest in my teaching them skills rather than theories.
So I had to put more efforts to meet their needs or I would certainly feel frustrated by
their unrewarding feedback. I pondered the possible reasons and finally came to the
conclusion that teaching textual cohesion might substantially improve their translation.
This was what motivated me.
At the beginning of the second semester
of their third year I put more emphasis on structural and systematic comparison between
Chinese and English in phonological, lexical, syntactical and contextual aspects with a
little practice as exercises, especially on cohesion, and then I spent some time
evaluating and assessing their assignment. After a four and a half months the semester
came to an end as usual and I produced the test paper on the same level in terms of
difficulty. The test went smoothly because I did my best to organize it carefully and
strictly and graded the students' work fairly just like the last time. Then I retrieved
from my files the records of Class One's test scores from the previous semester (when
textual cohesion was not taught) and compared them with those from the second semester. I
obtained the following results.
- Results
Table 1. Scores for Class One, End of 2nd
Semester
| 67 |
63 |
78 |
88 |
72 |
63 |
| 60 |
91 |
69 |
65 |
66 |
81 |
| 78 |
62 |
75 |
80 |
74 |
60 |
| 59 |
61 |
89 |
75 |
79 |
57 |
| 71 |
77 |
69 |
72 |
70 |
73 |
| 80 |
79 |
66 |
76 |
62 |
66 |
Table2. Scores for Class One, End of 1st Semester
| 76 |
75 |
75 |
68 |
71 |
67 |
| 64 |
74 |
68 |
60 |
65 |
61 |
| 59 |
61 |
74 |
62 |
70 |
81 |
| 70 |
89 |
66 |
70 |
77 |
61 |
| 76 |
64 |
65 |
63 |
63 |
54 |
| 72 |
52 |
68 |
86 |
64 |
64 |
Table 3. A contrast of the central
tendency between the two cases
|
Mode |
Median |
Mean |
| 2nd |
66 |
71.5 |
71.47 |
| 1st |
68 |
68 |
68.32 |
In terms of deviation, another table can
be produced.
Table 4. A contrast of deviation between
the two cases
|
2nd |
1st |
| Variance |
66.58 |
75.14 |
| Standard
Deviation |
8.16 |
8.67 |
The relationship between the variance and
the standard deviation is that the standard deviation is the square root of the variance.
The standard deviation is one of the most important statistical measures. It indicates the
typical amount by which values in the data set differ from the mean and no data summary is
complete until all relevant standard deviations have been calculated. So Table 4 shows
that the standard deviation of after the second semester is smaller than that before
which means after is better than before, not the opposite.
V. Analysis
The term reference is
traditionally used in semantics for the relationship that exists between a word and what
it points to in the real world. The reference of "chair" would therefore be a
particular chair that is being identified on a particular occasion. In Halliday and
Hasan's model of cohesion, reference is used in a similar but more restricted way. Instead
of denoting a direct relationship between words and extra-linguistic objects, reference is
limited here to the relationship of identity which exists between two linguistic
expressions. For example, in
Mrs. Thatcher has resigned. She announced
her decision this morning.
The pronoun she points to Mrs. Thatcher
within the textual world itself. Reference, in the textual rather than the semantic sense,
occurs when the reader has to retrieve the identity of what is being talked about by
referring to another expression in the immediate context. The resulting cohesion lies in
the continuity of reference, whereby the same thing enters into the discourse a second
time.
So, reference is a device which allows
the reader or hearer to trace participants, entities, events, etc. in a text.
Substitution and ellipsis, unlike
reference, are grammatical rather than semantic relationships. In substitution, an item is
replaced by another item:
Do you like movies?
I do.
In the above example, do is a
substitute for like movies. Items commonly used in substitution in English include do,
one, and the same.
Ellipsis involves the omission of an
item. In other words, in ellipsis, an item is replaced by nothing. This is a case of
leaving something unsaid which is nevertheless understood. It does not include every
instance in which the hearer or reader has to supply missing information, but only those
cases where the grammatical structure itself points to an item or items that can fill the
slot in question. Here is an example:
Joan brought some carnations, and
Catherine some sweet peas. (brought in second clause is ellipted.)
Conjunction involves the use of
formal markers to relate sentences, clauses and paragraphs to each other. Unlike
reference, substitution, and ellipsis, the use of conjunction does not instruct the reader
to supply missing information either by looking for it elsewhere in the text or by filling
structural slots. Instead, conjunction signals the way the writer wants the reader to
relate what is about to be said to what has been said before. Conjunction expresses one of
a small number of general relations are summarized below, with examples of conjunctions
which can or typically realize each relation.
a. additive: and, or also, in addition,
furthermore, besides, similarly, likewise, by contrast, for instance;
b. adversative: but, yet, however,
instead, on the other hand, nevertheless at any rate, as a matter of fact;
c. causal: so, consequently, it follows,
for, because, under the circumstances, for this reason;
d. continuatives: now, of course, well,
anyway, surely, after all.
Lexical cohesion refers to the role
played by the selection of vocabulary in organizing relations within a text. A given
lexical item cannot be said to have a cohesive function per se, but any lexical
item can enter into a cohesive relation with other items in a text. It can be said that
lexical cohesion covers any instance in which the use of a lexical item recalls the sense
of an earlier one. Halliday and Hasan divide lexical cohesion into two main categories:
reiteration and collocation. Reiteration, as the name suggests, involves repetition of
lexical items. A reiterated item may be a repetition of an earlier item, a synonym or
near-synonym, a super-ordinate, or a general word. For example:
There is a boy climbing that tree.
The boy is going to fall if he doesn't
take care. (repetition)
The lad's going to fall if he doesn't
take care. (synonym)
The child's going to fall if he doesn't
take care. (superordinate)
The idiot's going to fall if he doesn't
take care. (general word)
Reiteration is not the same as reference,
however, because it does not necessarily involve the same identity.
Collocation, as a subclass of lexical
cohesion in Halliday and Hasan's model, covers any instance which involves a pair of
lexical items that are associated with each other in the language in some way.
Halliday and Hasan offer the following
types of association as examples, but admit that there are other instances where the
association between lexical items cannot readily be given a name but is nevertheless felt
to exist.
Various kinds of appositeness of meaning:
e.g. boy/girl; love/hate; order/obey.
Associations between pairs of words from
the same ordered series: e.g. Tuesday /Thursday; August/December; dollar/cent.
Associations between pairs of words from
unordered lexical sets:
Part-whole relations: car/break;
body/arm; bicycle/wheel.
Part-part relations: mouth/chin;
verse/chorus;
Co-hyponymy: red/green(color);
chair/table(furniture).
Associations based on a history of
co-occurrence(collocation proper) e.g. rain, pouring, torrential, wet; hair, comb, curl,
wave; etc.
Lexical cohesion is not a relation
between pairs of words as the above discussion might suggest. On the contrary, lexical
cohesion typically operated though lexical chains( such as socialism, communist, East) More
examples are omitted for consideration of space.
VI. Application in Translation
As is well-known, Chinese and English
belong to different language families, and it is only natural that they may pose great
difficulties and challenges for experienced translators, let alone beginners such as my
students.
Cohesion may be the most challenging area
between the two languages. The above only describes the tools for cohesion in English, for
no thorough studies have been conducted in Chinese.
The conscious and purposeful application
of cohesion tools to translation practice has been proved of great use in English-Chinese
translation in my class, while the Chinese-English translator faces different types of
challenge and therefore may need different tools, which will be discussed in a separate
article.
Reference
Baker, Mona: 1992. In other words: A
Coursebook on Translation. Routledge Publishing House. UK
Woods, Anthony, et al. 1986.
Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge University Press. UK
Snell- Hornby, M. (1985) 'Translating as
a means of integrating language teaching and linguistics', in C. Titford and
A.E.Hieke(eds)Translation in Foreign Language Teaching and Testing, Tubingen
This article was originally
published at Translation Journal (http://accurapid.com/journal).
Read
more articles - Free!
E-mail
this article to your colleague!
Need
more translation jobs? Click here!
Translation
agencies are welcome to register here - Free!
Freelance
translators are welcome to register here - Free!
Subscribe
to TranslationDirectory.com newsletter - Free!
Take
part in TranslationDirectory.com poll - your voice
counts!
|