THE UTTERANCES CONTAINING IMPLICATURES
Translation is an operation performed on language. It is an across-the- board skill which helps improve learners’ language proficiency. Its essence is transference from the source text to the target text how to make an equivalency between two texts. Cao Xuan Hao (2005) discussed translation that includes four steps. He also considered that conversational implicature contains illocutionary meaning, but hearer/translators still recover the meaning and understand immediately when approaching to the source texts.
According to John Lyons (1995, p.286), the differences between languages about conventional implicature are “extremely difficult to translate an appropriate translation from source language to target language” and“...
cannot replace an utterance to the other in the same context but not exchange their implicatures”. Moreover, the difference between their cultures is a big challenge toward translator or English learners. In order to become good translator or interpreter, it is of great necessity for learners to acquire certain accumulation of linguistic and cultural knowledge in both foreign language and their mothertongue.
Choosing a suitable method of translation with particular utterance and situation need be noticed carefully.
• Translation with preservation of implicatue
Almost of the conversational implicatures are preserved in translation.
Translators would use a semantic approach to restore the accurate meaning of
Hoang Thi Yen - 1271A06 (2012 - 2016) 50 original text. However, there are some utterances be exchanged surface structure;
in other word, this approach does not ensure the equivalent form but their implicature is guaranteed.
• Translation with adaptation of implicature
Conventional implicature is very difficult to translate accurately from source language to target language. However, almost of the utterances which are translated, in general, implicature has a few changeable senses. Which means the readers can be affected more or less.
Conversational impliciature in some cases are changed by translator.
Language form plays an important role in target language, so translator can add some equivalent lexicon to expose the meaning. To make the translation familiar with Vietnamese style, translator can insert modal verbs, grammatical words, and so forth.
• Translation without implicature
Translator does not translate the implicature of source text by explanation of its meaning. This method is the lowest rate in three methods of translation. In particular, researching on implicature of funny story, implicature makes the laughter at the end part of story. If translator translates all of the meaning, reader cannot understand by themselves. Hence, function of implicature is not useful.
In general, in the process of translation, translator must pay attention to factors: aim, object, context of utterance and translator’s ability. Translation with adaptation of implicature may be contrast to the aims of author on the source
Hoang Thi Yen - 1271A06 (2012 - 2016) 51 texts. Translation without implicature can produce a rude text. Therefore, learners need to notice to choose a suitable method to the different discourse.
Hoang Thi Yen - 1271A06 (2012 - 2016) 52 PART C: CONCLUSION
Generally, there are a lot of concepts of implicture and related notions. In this study, in short, an imlicature is a proposition that is implied by the utterance of a sentence in a context even though that proposition is not a part of nor an entailment of what was actually said.Conversational implicature is usally created basing on violating the CP and the conversational maxims. In contrast, Conventional implicature is independent of the cooperative principle and its four maxims, but it depends on the units of languages. In English, conjunction, modal particles and syntactic forms as tense are used to express Conventional implicature.
The study shows that maxims are important for writers in order to evoke feelings and reactions in their readers. The writers adhere to different maxims in order to get the intended meaning from one speaker to another. In order to create humor as well as to bring out different characteristics and personality traits in the different character, it is necessary to break the maxims. However, working out the implicature of native funny stories is not an easy task for non-native speakers. The study indicates that in order to properly understand funny stories, the readers are required to have a considerable background knowledge. In summary, Grice’s maxims and the CP are used not only to understand how we communicate but also why and when we are uncooperative.
Funny stories bring out a variety of values and aspect of life. Funny stories were born and had developed with human development at the same time. In our life, we can laugh because of different reasons such as the illogical events or
Hoang Thi Yen - 1271A06 (2012 - 2016) 53 contradiction. The funny stories bring out not only the happy laughter but also the laughter of sadness. They also reflect, criticise and satirise the bad habits in the society. They can be used as a means of weapon to fight against the negative things in the society.Therefore, funny stories would be important sources to help non-native speakers be aware of the native country. For instance, understanding English funny story can help learners to broaden knowledge about English culture. We have more understanding about English sense of humor, seeing what and who English laugh at, learners can get some sense of English characters and English values. This factor plays an important role to bridge the cultural gap between English and Vietnamese, which may minimize the possibility of miscommunication when members of the two groups interact. Furthermore, funny stories with implicature can be used as a meaningful vehicle to explain and illustrate complex linguistic notions. Funny story can deal with hyponymy, polysemy, metaphor and metonymy, etc. Violation of maxims of implicature based on linguistics categories is rather common. The learners are expected to learn these linguistic categories better because they can see how they operate in every day situations where the language is played with. The implication of the study is to help Vietnamese learners of English realize and avoid making themselves funny or non-sense.
All the above things, this contrastive study has presented some similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese implicatures, analysed humor mechanism for help Vietnamese learners of English enrich more background knowledge, improving language proficiency. Furthermore, the writer only focuses on the humor mechanism basing on maxims in English and Vietnamese funny stories, this study has just touched a small aspect of short funny stories.
Hoang Thi Yen - 1271A06 (2012 - 2016) 54 The thesis has been completely with the greatest efforts of the writer.
However, shortcomings and mistakes are unavoidable. Therefore, the writer with sincere gratitude would be grateful for comments and criticisms of the readers so that the writer could improve it.
Hoang Thi Yen - 1271A06 (2012 - 2016)
REFERENCES
English materials
1. Brown, Gillian & Yule, George (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
2. Carl James (1980). Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman 3. Cook, Guy (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Cook, G. (1992). The Discourse of Advertising. London. Routlegde.
5. Crystal, D (1992). Introducing lingluistics. Harlow: Penguin.
6. Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber (1995). Relevance Theory. Oxford:
Blackwell.607-632. Handbook of Pragmatics.
7. Gazdar, Gerald (1979) Pragmatics, Implicature, Presupposition and LogicalForm. Florida Academis Press. INC
8. Geoffrey N. Leech (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman 9. George Lakoff (1992). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.
Cambridge University Press.
10.George Lakoff (1993). How Metaphor Structures Dreams: The Theory of Conceptual Metaphor Applied to Dream Analysis. Dreaming
11.Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
12.Halliday, M.A.K & R. Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London:
Longman
13.Levinson, S. C.(1983). Pragmatic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press.
Hoang Thi Yen - 1271A06 (2012 - 2016)
15.Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge: MIT press
16.Lyons, J (1994). Language and Linguistics An Introduction, Cambridge University Press.
17.Lyons J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics AnIntroduction, Cambridge University Press.
18.L’Hill.English Funny Stories
19.Nunan, David (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning, UK:
CUP. 25. Nunan, David (1993). Introducing Discourse Analysis, London:
Penguin Group.
20.Yao Xiaosu (2009). Conversational Implicature Analysis of Humor in American Situation Comedy “Friends”. University Gent
21.Yule George (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Vietnamese materials
22.Cao Xuân Hạo (1998). Tiếng Việt – Mấy vấn đề ngữ âm, ngữ pháp và ngữ nghĩa. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục.
23.Đỗ Thị Kim Liên (?). Những vấn đề chung về ngữ dụng học: Những phương thức cấu tạo hàm ngôn trong hội thoại. ĐHSP Vinh
24.Hùng Danh (2000). 1001 truyện cười dân gian xưa và nay.(st & bs) Nxb Thanh Niên
25.Nguyễn Đức Dân (1998). Logic và tiếng Việt. Nxb Giáo dục 26.Nguyễn Đức Dân (2000). Ngữ dụng học, tập 1. Giáo dục
27.Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2000). Dụng học Việt ngữ. H., Nxb ĐHQG, 237 tr