Πρόγραμμα Μετα-Φράσεις

Translation and Language Evolution”

The unit explores the potential of performance translation to register shifts in verbal communication styles, promoting intercultural understanding. On the assumption that performance translation versions mirror (and construct) linguistic identities, the unit examines manifestation of communication styles in two versions of Hugh Leonard's play Da (1973) for the Greek stage (1979 and 2006). It examines variation with reference to four verbal communication style dimensions identified in intercultural theory (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey 1988), the direct-indirect, elaborate-succinct, personal-contextual, instrumental-affective styles. Results show a shift in verbal communication styles over the period of 27 years that elapsed between the two performance translation versions. Greek society is shown to be developing individualistic tendencies in verbal communication, while collectivistic values are selectively employed to create a balance in everyday communication style. Shifting communication styles over the years raise issues of identity formation and development in present-day societies.

Leonard's Da explores themes of death, family, memory and identity. It refers to "a conflict between father and son. "As the play closes, Charlie must accept that the memory of his father cannot be locked away in the past but, for better or for worse, will follow him throughout his life" (eNotes.com, "Da-Intro").

Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey suggest four dimensions of communication style. There are cultures which prefer explicit or implicit (direct or indirect) styles in revealing the speaker's true intentions in communication. The second dimension of communication style varies along the elaborate-succinct options. The third communication style relates to personal vs. contextual options in interaction.  The fourth dimension of communication style ranges from instrumental to affective. Examples show aspects of communication patterns preferred in Greek vs. those preferred in English and variation between the two Greek performance versions along the four styles of language interaction. 1. DIRECT vs. INDIRECT STYLES. Examples 1 and 2 present translation shifts which suggest that directness is a predominant preference in Greek: overt expression of speaker attitude/intention (in ex. 1) and direct exhortations in everyday interaction manifested through imperatives (ex. 2). Directness is enforced in the 2006 version through manipulation of the value of offensive expressions (ST3 and ST4). If preference for the direct-indirect styles were represented in terms of a continuum, Greek would have to be placed closer to the 'direct' end of the continuum, relative to English. 2. ELABORATE vs. SUCCINCT STYLES. Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey place Americans in the middle of the elaborate-succinct scale, with Arab, Middle Eastern, Afro-American cultures on the elaborate end of the continuum, and Asian or Native American cultures on the succinct end. The data show that Greek versions (especially the 1979 one) tend to enforce the elaborate character of the verbal code (relative to English) by using similes, metaphors and fixed/idiomatic expressions, which raise conventionality (e.g. for similes see TT5 (2006), like a squeezed lemon dry). 3. PERSONAL vs. CONTEXTUAL STYLES. The data exhibit a fairly strong preference for the personal style through use of first-person pronouns (Neuliep 2006). Ex. 6 provides an instance of this. The contrastiveness in both versions in ex. 7 register the speaker's subjective viewpoint. Moreover, Mrs Prynne (ex. 8) refers to her husband as Mr. Prynne (1979, contextual orientation) and my husband (2006, personal orientation). Greek seems to be acquiring a position between English and Asian cultures on the personal-contextual style dimension: closer to the personal end of the continuum (for the personal orientation it adopts, but on the right of English (for the several contextual options it allows, the tu/vous distinction etc). 4. INSTRUMENTAL vs. AFFECTIVE STYLES. The instrumental character of Greek is shown in the translators' concern to reorganize messages in various ways (see addition [t]hat's why in ex. 10). In ex. 9, both Greek versions reorganize the message, by explicitly adding up items (not like those…) to present information contrastively. This contrast-creating intention has been traced in En-Gr press translation and elsewhere (Sidiropoulou 2004:27). By contrast, the affective character of Greek may be manifested in expressions assuming the speakers' awareness of the presence of the addressee: see don't you mind in ex. 11 (1979). It is also manifested in the reason-giving intention Greek favours (a positive politeness device, Brown and Levinson 1987, Sifianou 1992): in ex. 2 (2006) see it'll be good for you, in ex.12 (1979) see addition my hock aches. A tentative suggestion would be (ex. 12) that the 1979 version is more affectively oriented, whereas version 2006 is more instrumentally oriented.

Measurement of findings indicates that Greek shows a clear preference for direct, elaborate, personal, instrumental style, with contextual and affective options enforcing the communicative potential of discourse. Figure 1 shows these tendencies (as traced in the Greek versions of Da) relative to English. Along the first two communication style dimensions, Greek seems to be clearly exhibiting a low-context individualistic profile (much like American society and many European ones, Hofstede and Hofstede 2005). Along the last two communication styles, this is not as evident: Greek seems to be appreciating high-context collectivistic cultural profiles, as well. The data shows (Figure 2) that present-day Greek society (●) would opt for more direct, less elaborated, personal and instrumental verbal codes (with some emphasis on the contextual and the affective), whereas 27 years ago (■) directness was less preferred, elaboration favoured more than today, while more contextual (and possibly more affective) options were preferred.

The question arises as to whether these findings can be assumed to be representing tendencies in everyday communication or whether they are manifestations of shifting theatrical conventions, or manifestations of idiolectal preference of the translators as individual members of a culture. Questionnaire results assessing the naturalness of options suggested in the two target versions of 'Da' suggest that: (a) directness is indeed a value in present-day family interaction, (b) Elaboration is occasionally preferred over non-elaboration (3), but not over directness/offensiveness (2) or affectiveness (8), (c) Personal style is preferred over contextual one (4, 5, 6) and (d) preference for the affective does seem to be a predominant value (7-10). The study suggests that present-day interaction is heading leftwards, along the direct-indirect and personal-contextual dimensions, i.e. towards choices favoured by low-context individualistic cultures (e.g. the US). By contrast, along the elaborate-succinct and instrumental-affective stylistic dimensions, Greek seems to be partly mitigating its tendency towards the elaborate or the instrumental style of individualistic cultures, in favour of the non-elaborate and the affective (high-context, collectivistic tendencies). Questionnaire results testify to the preference displayed in the 2006 version. This suggests that the broad notion of translation equivalence, which stage translators develop, can accurately register linguistic preference in social interaction at the time of staging, thus contributing considerable insights to the study of intercultural difference.

References – Electronic sources – Texts – An early version of the study was presented at a conference, Ege University, Izmir.

The 2006 performance of Ντα –- Acknowledgements –- Copyright