TEXTUAL EQUIVALENCE:COHESION Grammatical and lexical

1. TEXTUAL EQUIVALENCE:COHESION • Grammatical and lexical • Cohesion is a network, a surface relation of lexical, grammatical and other kind of relations which provide links between various parts of a text. • Halliday and Hasan identify five main cohesive devices: • Grammatical cohesion: • Reference • Substitution and ellipsis • Conjunctions • Lexical cohesion • Reiteration • Collocation

2. Reference • Textual sense • Relationship of identity which holds between two linguistic expressions. • Mrs Thatcher has resigned. She announced her decision this morning • She points to Mrs Thatcher

3. The most common reference items in English (and other languages) are pronouns). They refer back anaphorically (or forward, cataphorically) to an entity which has already been mentioned (or which has to be mentioned). • Third –person, this, that , those, etc. • Mrs Thacher has resigned. This delighted her opponents • Third –person, this, that , those, etc.

4. Lily, the carateker’s daughter, wasliterallyrunofherfeet. Hardlyhadshebroughtone gentleman into the littlepantrybehind the office on the groundfloor and helpedhimoff withhisovercoat, that the weezyhaal-doorbellchangedagain and shehadtoscamperalong the bare hallwaytolet in anotherguest. Itwaswellforhershehadnottoattendto the ladiesalso. But miss Kate and miss Julia hadthoughtofthat and hadconverted the bathrtoomupstairsijnto the ladies’ dressingroom(Gente di Dublino J. Joyce). • Her Lily • She Lily • Himone gentleman • Hishim • She Lily • Her Lily • She Lily • Thattoattendto the ladiesalso

5. There is a continuum of cohesive elements that may be used for referring back to an entity already mentioned in the discourse: • The continuum stretches from full repetition at one hand of the scale to pronominal reference at the other: • There is a boy climbing that tree: • The boy is going to fall if he doesn’t take care (repetition) • The lad’s going tofall if he doens’t take care (synonim) • The child’s is going to fall if he doens’t take care (superordinate-hyperonim) • The idiot’s is going to fall if he doens’t take care (general word) • He’s going to fall if he doens’t take care (pronominal reference)

6. What is the implication for a translator? • The distribution of pronouns vs full noun phrases differ dramatically from one discourse to another’ (Cook1992). • Advertising discourse prefer repeating the name of object instead of using pronominal reference: • “one obvious function of the repetition is to fix the name of the product in the mind, so that it will come to the lips of the purchaser lost for a name” (Cook 1992: 154) • ‘Parallelisms and repetitions […] ear-catching […] and make advertising style more entairtaining and pleasurable’ (van Leeuwen 2005: 152)

7. Substitution and ellipsis • Unlikereferences, they are grammaticalratherthansemanticrelationships. • In substitutiononeelementisreplacedbyanother item: • I likemovies • And I do • Do is a substituteforI likemovies • Itemscommonlyused in substituions: do, one, the same; • YouthinkJoshalreadyknows? I thinkeverybodydoes (doesreplacesknows) • Myaxeistooblunt. I mustget a sharperone. (onereplacesaxe) • A) I’llhavetwopoachedeggs on toasts, please. • B) I’llhave the same (The samereplacestwopoachedeggs on toasts)

8. Ellipsis • involves the omission of an item. An item is not replaced and it is left usaid although it is nevertheless understood. • Joan brought some bread and Catherine some meat. (elliptical item: brought in the second clause) • Here are thirteen cards Take any. Now give me any three. (elliptical item: cards after any in the second clause and cards after any three in the third clause) • Have you been swimming? Yes, I have. (Elliptical item: been swimming in the second clause) (Halliday and Hasan 1976).

9. What are the implication for a translation? • The translator need to be aware that there are different devices for creating cohesion: • Reworking the textual norms of the target language. • Unlike the Italian grammatical system, the English system makes very few distinctions in terms of number, gender, and verb agreement. Lexical repetition is therefore a much safer option in cases where ambiguiity of reference may arise and in contexts which do not tolerate ambiguity. • The textual norms of different genre suggest certain options and rules. • In legal texts and semi-legal texts, it has become the norm to use lexical repetition even in instance where no ambiguity might result from using pronominal reference.

10. Conjunctions • Formalmarkersemployedtorelatesentences, clauses, and paragraphstoeachother. Unlikereferences, substitution and ellipsis, usedtosupplymissing information, conjunctionssignals the way the writerwantstorelatechunksof the text. • The main relations are summarizedbelow: • additive: and, or, also, in addition, furthermore, besides, similarly, likewise, bycontrast, forinstance. • Adversative: but, yet, however, instead, on the otherhand, nevertheless, at any rate, as a matteroffact. • Causal: so, consequently, itfollows, for, because, under, the cirmustances, forthisreason. • Temporal: then, next, afterthat, on anotheroccasion,in conclusion, anhourlater, finally, at last. • Continuatives: now, ofcourse, well, anyway, surely, afterthat.

11. Conjunctions • What are the implicationsfor a translator? • the useisdifferentaccordingto the differentgenres: some genres are “more conjunctivethanothers” (Baker 2011: 205): • Eachgenrehasitsownpreferenceforcertaintypesofconjunctions. • Example: • Conjunctions in general, and causalconjunctions in particular: since, for , because, in science are relativelyinfrequent. Thisisexplainedby the high levelofassumedknowledge and by the needtogive the impressionofobjectivity. • Journalism: lackofcausalconjunctionsforreasonofspace and the neednottogiveanimpressionofovertexplanationofreportedeventsrisking the dangeroflegalsuits and liability.

12. Lexicalcohesion • Refersto the roleplayedby the selectionofvocabulary in organizing relation between the text. Halliday and Hasan divide them in twomaincategories: • Reiteration: repetitionoflexicalitems. • Collocation: involves a pairoflexicalitemsthat are associatedwitheachother in some way.

13. Lexicalcohesion • Reiteration: repetitionoflexicalitems. A reiterated item maybe a repetitionofanearlier item, a synonim, a nearsynonim, a superordinate, a general word. In thissense, reiteration can beplacedalong the same continuum asreference (exceptforpronominalreference). • Thereis a boy climbing thattree: • The boy isgoingtofallifhedoesn’t take care (repetition) • The lad’s goingtofallifhedoens’t take care (synonim) • The child’s isgoingtofallifhedoens’t take care (superordinate-hyperonim) • The idiot’s isgoingtofallifhedoens’t take care (general word) • Reiterationisnot the same a reference. • Reiteration: doesnotnecessarilyinvolvesidentity. • Referenceinvolvesidentity.

14. Lexicalcohesion • Reiteration:. • Thereis a boy climbing thattree: • The boy isgoingtofallifhedoesn’t take care (repetition). Boys can’t be so silly. • the repetitionofboy boyswouldstillbeanintanceofreiteration, eventhough the twoitemswouldnotbereferringto the sameindividual(s).

15. Lexicalcohesion • Collocation: • Subclassoflexicalcohesioncoversanyinstancewhichinvolves a pairoflexicalitemsassociatedwitheachother in the language in some way. • variouskindsofoppositnessofmeaning: e.g. love/hate, order /obey, boy/girl; • par-wholemeronym relations: car/ brake, body/arm, bicycle/wheel; • Part-partrelationship:mouth/chin, verse/chorus; • Co-hyponimy: red/green(colour), chair/table (furniture);

16. Lexicalcohesion • Implicationfortranslation: • Collocation: • Impossibletoreproduce a neworkoflexicalcohesion in a target text whichisidenticaltothatof the source text. • The resultisthat the tranlatorshouldadd or delete information or reword part of the souce text. • Thereis a generaltendency in translationtoraise the levelofexplicitness: thatisincreasing the levelofredundancy in the target text “[…] aspracticedbylanguagelearners, non professionaltranlators” (Blum-Kulka)