Abstract
There are similarities (and also differences) between the practice of indirect reporting and translation. Their similarities and differences are important especially when it comes to issues such as translating/reporting slurring as well as the complicated topic of accountability in reporting/translating. Although there are more limitations in translation than indirect reporting, new developments in translation studies have provided the translator with a lot of freedom to make subjective changes based on sociocultural features. In this chapter, it is also argued that indirect reporting and translating are rational procedures that should meet four requirements: verifiability, plausibility, situational adequacy, and value-orientedness. Moreover, the challenging case of Paraphrasis/Form Principle is discussed. It is also shown that, based on Goffman’s theory of dramaturgy, indirect reporting is more relevant and representative of the idea of ‘masking’ since it is more immediate and dialogic than translating. In this chapter, the role of the hearer/reader is discussed and it is shown that the hearer/reader has an important effect on the way the reporter/translator exerts changes to the original utterances. In the end, the neglected case of ‘non-verbal communication’ is covered and it is argued that both the translator and indirect reporter should take non-verbal communication into account during reporting/translating.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
“Compensation is a technique which involves making up for the loss of a source text effect by recreating a similar effect in the target text through means that are specific to the target language and/or text” (Harvey, 2001, p. 37).
- 2.
Dramatisation can be conceptualised as the mutual evaluative work that is accomplished by both the performer and the audience, thus manifesting the inseparable connection between performer (reporting speaker/translator) and audience.
- 3.
Lorrie Moore is an American fiction writer known mainly for her humorous and poignant short stories.
- 4.
As reported by Capone (2016, p. 189), the Principle is defined as: “Do not translate an expression occurring in the original utterance (reported) with a word giving the impression that the original speaker was slurring, using foul language, insulting, etc. unless the original speaker was indeed slurring, using foul language, insulting, etc.”
- 5.
Prevarication can also be a property of written text but my point here is that when someone translates a text (or reports someone else’s written utterances), the responsibility of the content is to a large extent on the shoulder of the original speaker, not the translator. Of course, my argument is true only in case when the translator is competent enough and takes into account faithfulness to the original text (the translator should not change a non-derogatory word in the original text with a derogatory one).
- 6.
In this regard, Bamgbose (1986) argues that this phenomenon is called ‘hearsay reports’ whereby “the reporter is repeating something which has been passed down from one or more previous reporters” (p. 94).
- 7.
There are controversial issues surrounding the nature of interjections (refer to Wharton [2009] for a comprehensive discussion on interjections). Suffice it to say that the paralinguistic nature of interjections is not advocated by some researchers.
References
Allan, K. (2016). The reporting of slurs. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 211–232). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 101–118.
Bamgbose, A. (1986). Reported speech in Yoruba. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 77–99). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.
Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2005). Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use. In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension (pp. 21–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bell, R. T. (2001). Psycholinguistic/cognitive approaches. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 185–190). London/New York: Routledge.
Besemeres, M., & Wierzbicka, A. (2003). The meaning of the particle lah in Singapore English. Pragmatics and Cognition, 11, 13–38.
Capone, A. (2015). Indirect reports, slurs and the polyphonic speaker. Reti, Saperi, Linguaggi, 2(2014), 13–36.
Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1990). Meaning and grammar: An introduction to semantics. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Colston, H. L. (2005). On sociocultural and nonliteral: A synopsis and a prophesy. In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension (pp. 1–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cronin, M. (2001). Game theory and translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 91–93). London: Routledge.
Dascal, M. (2003). Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dascal, M., & Weizman, E. (1987). Contextual exploitation of interpretation clues in text understanding: An integrated model. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective (pp. 31–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davis, W. (2005). Non descriptive meaning and reference: An ideational semantics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ferreira, V. S., Slevc, L. R., & Rogers, E. S. (2005). How do speakers avoid ambiguous linguistic expressions? Cognition, 96(3), 263–284.
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Gutt, E. A. (1991). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Hall, J. A., & Knapp, M. L. (Eds.). (2013). Nonverbal communication (Vol. 2). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Harvey, K. (2001). Compensation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 37–40). London/New York: Routledge.
Jaworski, A., & Galasiński, D. (2002). The verbal construction of non-verbal behaviour: British press reports of President Clinton’s grand jury testimony video. Discourse & Society, 13(5), 629–648.
Kecskes, I., & Mey, J. L. (Eds.). (2008). Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker hearer. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Kramsch, C. (2000). Social discursive constructions of self in L2 learning. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 133–154). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Moore, L. (2000). You’re ugly, too. In J. Updike & K. Kenison (Eds.), The best American short stories of the century (pp. 652–670). Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Morady Moghaddam, M. (2018). Review of the book The pragmatics of indirect reports: Sociophilosophical considerations, by A. Capone. Lingua, 204, 134–141.
Mueller-Vollmer, K., & Irmscher, M. (Eds.). (1998). Translating literatures, translating cultures: New vistas and approaches in literary studies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Owen, G. E. L. (1965). Aristotle on the snares on ontology. In R. Bambrough (Ed.), New essays on Plato and Aristotle (Vol. 3, pp. 69–96). London/New York: Routledge.
Poyatos, F. (1997). Introduction. In F. Poyatos (Ed.), Nonverbal communication and translation: New perspectives and challenges in literature, interpretation and the media (pp. 131–141). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Remland, M. S. (1994). The importance of nonverbal communication in the courtroom. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 2(2), 124–145.
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
Schäffner, C. (2001). Action (theory of ‘translation action’). In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (pp. 3–5). London/New York: Routledge.
Schäffner, C. (2017). Criticism of functionalist theories. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation (2nd ed., pp. 120–121). New York: Routledge.
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Simms, K. (1997). Introduction. In K. Simms (Ed.), Translating sensitive texts: Linguistic aspects (pp. 1–27). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Varela, F. C. (1997). Translating non-verbal information in dubbing. Benjamins Translation Library, 17, 315–326.
Wallsten, T. S. (1980). Preface. In T. S. Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior (pp. ix–xvi). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkins, D. (1992). Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 119–158.
Yule, G. (2010). The study of language (4th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zeki, C. P. (2009). The importance of non-verbal communication in classroom management. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1443–1449.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Morady Moghaddam, M. (2019). Indirect Reports and Translation. In: The Praxis of Indirect Reports. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14269-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14269-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14268-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14269-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)