TABLE OF CONTENT
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
2. Purposes of the study
3. Scope of the study
4. Methodology
4.1. Research Questions
4.2. Methods
4.3. Data collection procedures
4.4. Data Analysis
5. Design of the study
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. What is pragmatics?
1.2. Pragmatic markers
1.3. What is Equivalence in Translation?
1.4. Pragmatic equivalence: (Nida (1964) calls it “dynamic equivalence”).
1.5. E. A. Nida’s response-based approach on Translation Quality Assessment
1.6. Pragmatic features of the source text and the receptor of the target text
1.6.1. The authors expectation and implication towards primary receptors.
1.6.2. Vietnamese receptors response to the TT.
CHAPTER 2: PRAGMATIC MARKERS IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT.
2.1. Functions of Pragmatic Markers in Rhetorical Structure
2.1.1. Emphasizer:
2.1.2. Comment marker:
2.1.3. Evidential Marker:
2.1.4. Resumption Marker:
2.1.5. Addition Marker:
2.1.6. Concluding Marker:
2.1.7. Evaluator:
2.1.8. Topic Shifter:
2.1.9. Clarifier:
2.2. Functions of Pragmatic Markers in Sequential Structure.
2.2.1. Opening segment boundary marker:
2.2.2. Closing segment boundary marker:
2.3. Functions of Pragmatic Markers in Inferential Structure.
2.3.1. Contextual Constrainer:
2.3.2. Monitoring Marker:
2.3.3. Justification Marker:
2.3.4. Face-threat mitigator:
CHAPTER 3: TREATMENTS OF PRAGMATIC MARKERS IN THE
VIETNAMESE TRANSLATION.
3.1. Treatment of pragmatic markers in Rhetorical Structure.
3.1.1. Treatment of Emphasizer
3.1.2. Treatment of Comment marker
3.1.3. Treatment of Evidential Marker
3.1.4. Treatment of Resumption Marker
3.1.5. Treatment of Addition Marker
3.1.6. Treatment of Concluding Marker
3.1.7. Treatment of Evaluator
3.1.8. Treatment of Topic Shifter
3.1.9. Treatment of Clarifier
3.2. Treatment of pragmatic markers in Sequential Structure.
3.2.1. Treatment of Opening segment boundary marker
3.2.2. Treatment of Closing segment boundary marker
3.3. Treatment of pragmatic markers in Inferential Structure.
3.3.1. Treatment of Contextual Constrainer
3.3.2. Treatment of Monitoring Marker:
3.3.3. Treatment of Justification Marker
3.3.4. Treatment of Face-threat mitigator
3.4. Analysis of the pragmatic equivalence in the translation with regards to
pragmatic markers through a written discourse completion task.
3.4.1. The participants
3.4.2. The instruments
3.4.3. Data analysis
3.4.4. Results
PART 3: CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
Pragmatic Questionnaire