Semio-pragmatic_analysis_of_cartoons_discourse_A_step_toward

Graduate School ETD Form 9 (Revised 12/07)

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance

This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared

By Entitled For the degree of

Is approved by the final examining committee:

Chair

To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Research Integrity and

Copyright Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 20), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material.

Approved by Major Professor(s): ____________________________________

____________________________________ Approved by:

Head of the Graduate Program

Date

Naser Naif AlBzour

Semio-Pragmatic Analysis of Cartoons Discourse:A Step towards Semiotranslation

Doctor of Philosophy

Victor Raskin

Myrdene Anderson

Elaine J.Francis

Julia M.Taylor

Victor Raskin Ronnie Wilbur

03/21/2011

P R

E V

I E

W

Graduate School Form 20

(Revised 9/10)

PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL

Research Integrity and Copyright Disclaimer Title of Thesis/Dissertation:

I certify that in the preparation of this thesis, I have observed the provisions of Purdue University Executive Memorandum No. C-22, September 6, 1991, Policy on Integrity in Research.*Further, I certify that this work is free of plagiarism and all materials appearing in this

thesis/dissertation have been properly quoted and attributed.

I certify that all copyrighted material incorporated into this thesis/dissertation is in compliance with the United States’ copyright law and that I have received written permission from the copyright owners for my use of their work, which is beyond the scope of the law. I agree to indemnify and save harmless Purdue University from any and all claims that may be asserted or that may arise from any copyright violation.

______________________________________ Printed Name and Signature of Candidate

______________________________________

Date (month/day/year) *Located at 2af98928da38376bae1fae78/policies/pages/teach_res_outreach/c_22 Semio-Pragmatic Analysis of Cartoons Discourse:a Step towards Semiotranslation

Naser Naif AlBzour 04/05/2011

P R E V I E W

SEMIO-PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF CARTOONS DISCOURSE:

A STEP TOWARDS SEMIOTRANSLATION

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Purdue University

by

Naser Naif AlBzour

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2011

Purdue University

West Lafayette, Indiana

P R E V I E W

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346UMI 3475281

Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.UMI Number: 3475281

P R

E V I E W

ii

To my great loving parents, to my beloved wife,

To my cherubic little kids, And to all those whom I do love

P R E V I E W

iii

ACK OWLEDGEME TS

This is to sincerely acknowledge how indebted I am, and I should always be, to a number of people without whose efforts and support this achievement would have never been attained. Prior to all that is my utmost thanks and praise to the Almighty God, who has blessed me with all sorts of innumerable and unimagineable boons, amongst which is the bless of having all these great people in my life. First, my deep gratitude goes to my major advisor, Professor Victor Raskin, who has offered me all academic support and without his understanding and insightful instructions and comments this research would have never come to light. Second, I am fully obliged to express my true thanks to every respectable inpidual serving on my advisory committee, namely, Professor Myrdene Anderson, Professor Elaine Francis and Professor Julia Taylor, for their obvious encou-ragement, significant feed back and true guidance. Third, to my beautiful PU and to all my dear professors at the linguistics program, I have to utter my heart-felt thanks; I did indeed learn a lot from each of them: Ronnie Wilbur, Diane Brentari and Mary Niepokju.

Ineffably yet unequivocally, I have to admit that I do owe all thanks and love to my dearest wife, who has never hesitated for a single second about exerting and dedicat-ing all her life to provide me with all solace and comfort that I needed during these tough times of diligent study and work. Jovial ‘Super-dooper’ thanks and passionate hugs go to

P R E V I E W

iv

my two little daughters, Rand and Shahd and also to my sweet little baby, Qudama, for they have kindled my heart with all love, enthusiasm and hope, which was the utmost

momentum that ignited my determination to proceed till I have reached this significant

juncture of my life. I have also to express my utter gratitude to my great parents, who have raised me; who have enthused me all the way through; and who have been suppli-cating for me day and night and who have been a genuine source of ceaseless aspiration for me. Last but not least, to my great sisters, who have given me all true love and to all my family members, I should say ‘thank you’ from the bottoms of my heart.

P R E V I E W

v

TABLE OF CO TE TS Page ABSTRACT (ix)

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY (1)

I. Background (1)

II. Statement of the Problem ................................................................................... 5 III. Objective and Significance of the Research .. (16)

IV. Data Collection (18)

V. Data Analysis (19)

VI. Design of the Research (23)

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .......................................... 26 I. Translation and Culture . (26)

II. Arabic and English Culture (31)

III. Translation &Theory of Meaning (36)

A. Linguistic Perspective (41)

B. Semiotic Perspective (55)

IV. Cartoons, Humor and Translation ................................................................... 66 i. Theories of Humor (67)

ii. Cartoons and Satire (76)

iii. Translating Humor (79)

CHAPTER THREE: PRAGMATICS AND THE DISCOURSE OF CARTOONS (86)

I. Humor and Pragmatic Competence (87)

II. The Pragmatics of Cartoons (94)

i. Presuppositions (97)

ii. Implicature (105)

P R E V I E W

vi

Page

iii. Speech Acts .......................................................................................... 112 iv. Deixis and Terms of Address................................................................ 123 CHAPTER FOUR: CARTOONS: FROM PRAGMATICS TO SEMIOTICS .. (137)

I. Semiotranslation .............................................................................................. 137 II. Cartoons and Sign Types ............................................................................... 141 III. Translating Emics and Etics . (145)

i. Absolute Culture-Free Cartoons (149)

ii. Predominantly Culture-Free Cartoons (155)

iii. Balanced Culture-Free & Culture-Specific Cartoons (159)

iv. Predominantly Culture-Specific Cartoons (171)

v. Absolute Culture-Specific Cartoons (180)

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION................................................................................. 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 195 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Cartoonic Data ............................................................................. 213 Appendix B: Cartoonist’s Permission. ................................................................ 223 Appendix C: Disclaimer ..................................................................................... 224 VITA . (225)

P R E V I E W

vii

TRA SLITERATI G SYMBOLS

/b/

voiced bilabial stop /d/

voiced alveolar stop /g/

voiced velar stop /Q/

voiced uvular emphatic stop /dj /

voiced postalveolar affricate /z/

voiced alveolar fricative /Th/ voiced interdental fricative /TH/ voiced interdental emphatic fricative /D/

voiced dental emphatic stop /l /

voiced alveolar lateral /r/

voiced alveolar tap /?/

voiced pharyngeal fricative /gh/

voiced uvular fricative /m/

voiced bilabial nasal /n/

voiced apico-alveolar nasal /w/

voiced bilabial glide /y/

voiced palatal glide /?/ voiced glottal stop

P R E V I E W

viii

/t / voiceless dental stop /k/

voiceless velar stop /s/

voiceless alveolar fricative /S/

voiceless alveolar emphatic fricative /sh/

voiceless postalveolar fricative /f/

voilceless labiodental fricative /th/

voiceless interdental fricative /T/

voiceless dental emphatic stop /H/

voiceless pharyngeal fricative /x/

voiceless uvular fricative /h/

voiceless laryngeal fricative /ee/

high front tense vowel /I /

high front lax vowel /e/

mid front lax vowel

/a/

mid central short vowel /aa/ low front lax vowel /aa:/ low back tense vowel /oo/ high back tense vowel /u/ high back lax vowel

P R E V I E W

ix

ABSTRACT

Al-Bzour, Naser. Ph.D., Purdue University, May 2011. Semio-Pragmatic Analysis of Cartoons Discourse: a Step towards Semiotranslation. Major Professor: Victor Raskin.

The primary concern of this study is to explore the subtle implications of the Semiotran-slation Approach vis-à-vis analyzing the semiotic elements of discourse in Jordanian car-toons as creative artistic texts in which various signs manifest simultaneous interaction, thus achieving both entertainment and purposeful satire. Therefore, the implications of such a semiotic analysis can be conducive to realizing the significance of semiotransla-tion in fathoming and eliciting the infamous inevitability of both linguistic and cultural lacunae in most renditions, resulting from the dogmatic persistence on confining transla-tion to various unilateral equivalence approaches. Furthermore, it is crucial to pinpoint that this study is not by any means intended to pedantically propose or to recklessly pre-scribe any set of rules that would mythically achieve optimal translation; rather it is mere-ly a modest endeavor that may elucidate the dilemma translators oftentimes encounter while rendering such artistic works, on the one hand, and suggest some theoretical and practical framework within which translators find some guidelines while translating some relevant types of authoritative texts. In addition, the results of the present study explicitly

P R E V I E W

x

reveal how significant it would be for translators to closely examine the pragmatic as-pects of the ST in light considering and implementing some major pragmatic premises, mainly, presuppositions, implicatures, speech acts and deictic expressions . The transla-

tor’s awareness of such pitfalls and his/ her appropriate handling of these pragmatic is-sues are basically some of the critical factors that may lead to the ultimate success or oth-erwise the failure of most renditions. Furthermore, this study examines how various types of verbal and non-verbal signs interact within and outside these texts, whether these signs are verbal or pictorial is indeed insignificant, neither in quality nor in quantity. What is noticeably significant about analyzing the discourse of these cartoons is how emic or etic these signs might be and how they may interact. The more akin to the former these sign are, the wider the communicative gap can be between the TL and the TT; and the more etic and etic -like these sign are, the smoother the TT will be. Accordingly, five types of cartoons have been identified in accordance with this emic-etic dichotomy and its subs-tantively predictable impact on interpreting and/or translating the text in question, thus encompassing a wide spectrum that ranges between absolute emic signs and absolute etic ones. However, these cartoons are always translatable as long as appropriate compensa-tion strategies are in operation and insofar as the translator is fully aware and convinced of the fact that signs can be and should be translated interlinguistically, intralinguistically, intrasemiotically or intersemiotically.

P R E V I E W

1

CHAPTER O E

I TRODUCTIO A D RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

I. Background

It would not be a sweeping overstatement to argue that translation, which is in es-sence a process of transferring lore and wisdom, was the second major invention in the recorded history of humanity- after the Promethean treachery- which was also an act of transferring the torch of fire literally and figuratively according to Greek mythology, of course. By translating almost all remarkable works from Ancient Greece, Persia as well as Byzantium, translation was thereby crucially behind the glory of the Abbasid empire, which prosperously reigned over a vast realm of the hemisphere, see Nicholsen (1969), Hourani (1991), et al . Additionally, it was to a great extent the spark that ignited the Eu-ropean Renaissance , which was the main factor behind what we have witnessed of all innumerable advancements and evident wellbeing of our species as Homo culturalis and Homo technologicus .

This researcher’s interest, therefore, extends to invigorate culturally-oiented contras-tive linguistics and translation studies that lend themselves to substantially minimizing the differences amongst languages and cultures in order to hopefully facilitate and boost the global communicative interaction among peoples of all races and faiths.

P R E V I E W

2

There is no argument that colossal globe has amazingly shrunk into a small village dis-tance-wise; still we need to see the cultural hiatus immensely and radically bridged. This is a communally sacred mission that philosophers, linguists and all people of intellect

alike should voluntarily and relentlessly shoulder and foster bona fide. The linguistic and cultural implications should be solely perceived from a perspective that credits similari-ties and neglects superficial difference. This can be clearly captured if we examine the following definition of culture as outlined by Suzuki (1984: 7) where the act of pointing should be emphasized while the exact directionality of pointing and the organ used for this act should be ignored as long as it is the body which is realized as an icon representing the self, so instead of highlighting and in contrast … a similarly … argu-ment should be considered:

However, what I call culture in his book is a set of behavior and thought patterns that are peculiar to a certain group of people and that passed on from parent to child, from ancestor to descendant. For example, a Japanese indicates himself by pointing to his nose with his forefinger; in contrast, a Wes-terner usually points to his chest with his thumb. These two ways of indicating oneself reveal a cultural difference. Arabic and English are not alien to each other as it is unfortunately and normally portrayed and erroneously propagated by many fanatics, as if one were residing in the limbo of the freezing Antarctic icebergs and the other were dwelling in the barren seclu-sion of the Sahara’s infernal sand dunes. On the contrary, these two cultures per se have had an enormous amount of common denominators over the past three millennia, starting with the genesis of their basic tribal and pagan origins and chivalric ideals; and eventual-ly passing through the pine-source religion shifts. Admittedly, the three major pine

P R E V I E W

3

religions; namely, Judaism, Christianity and Islam - which more than two billions em-brace in both cultures- were revealed in the wombs of the three descendents of the same Semitic languages, i.e. Hebrew, Aramaic

and Arabic, respectively, and they had origi-nated and prospered in the same cradle almost in the same vicinity before being trans-ferred and translated into Latin, Greek and other European languages.

Moreover, many aspects of historical linguistic and cultural aspects of interactive contact have taken place as a correlative corollary to the bidirectional conquests through different stages of history; translation movement , orientalism; and ending with their close contact in modern time as a result of British and American supremacy over the Arab world; let alone the gigantic impact of globalization, informational revolution and the af-termaths of 11th September. These can be positive motivations that encourage fruitful translation works since power, reputation and ideology are the main elements that direct any translation process according to Lefevere (1992: vii), who strongly believes that translation is often “carried out in the service of power.” Admittedly, this researcher has been more likely under the spell of the wide scope of pragmatics and pragmatism as essential aspects of meaning that contribute to casting a wider range of shadow appertaining to the linguistic and non-linguistic factors that basi-cally have some substantial influence on sense ramification. Such pragmatic, sociolin-guistic and sociocultural dimensions would undoubtedly cater for the persity of mean-ing with relevance to many intersecting cultural and cooperatively social parameters which should be indispensably considered in determining the significance of all contex-tual layers. Taking cognizance of this amazing interaction is by all means imperative in

P R E V I E W

4

the sense that it broadens the scope of the domain of this study to encompass the discour-sal aspects of text linguistics and eventually semiotics at a certain advanced stage, so a potentially coined term such as semiotranslation approach needs to be emphasized hing-

ing upon entwined and interacting disciplines such as sociolinguistics, pragmatics and semiotics. This goes hand in hand with Reis (2000) as she proposes both intra-linguistic and extra-linguistic criteria at a certain level of adequacy; the former comprises lexical, grammatical and stylistic aspects while the latter hinges upon contextual elements, partic-ipants and discoursal effects. Translation by definition involves huge losses, but such losses are due to many cru-cial factors more significant than the presumable ‘linguistic and cultural remoteness’ and its despicable implications of the horrifying prospect of the so-called ‘inevitable cultural clash’ which should not loom large under any exaggerated circumstances of frequently fallacious pretexts that aim at inciting peoples into apocalyptic consequences of animosi-ty. Accordingly, it is imperative to advocate translation and cultural studies that can posi-tively reflect and affect the cross-cultural interactional coexistence in its noble human context instead of aggrandizing trivially infinitesimal differences that may subsequently cause unbridgeable schismatic gaps among peoples, AlBzour (1997). Consequently, armed with diligence and perseverance, linguists and translators should always be willing to delve into and assist in the exploration of any challenging and arduous domain of lin-guistics and/or translation studies with a keen vision within the scope of such an interdis-ciplinary enterprise that may serve the best interest of mankind towards desirable apogee of prosperity. Apparently, this assumption about the role of translation in such political

P R E V I E W

5

and socio-cultural contexts is not by any means irrelevant because translation can be so influential at the social and the cultural levels when the process is well-organized and

controlled by such powerful institutions and even when such translation endeavours are

carried out by inpidual translators, Venuti (1998). In addition, the subjectivity of the translator plays a significant role as well as summed up by Wang (2008:154):

In accounting for the translator’s strategic selection, we have to take

into consideration not only the objective position of the target cul-

ture, but also the translator’s attitude towards it. Both factors can in-

fluence the translator’s strategic selection.

II. Statement of the Problem

The theory of meaning has been closely associated with semantics for ages; accor-dingly, translation theory has been oftentimes misled. It is pretty valid, as a result, that pragmatic dimensions reinforce the argument that the reconstruction of any utterance stems from the domain of conversational implicature rather than the semantic features, so a text is pragmatically and primarily motivated. More interestingly, and apart from the rigidity of the content domain, Sweetser (1991) introduces a range of speech acts that the presumably conditional structure can provoke in real conversation. Her analysis hinges upon a bunch of pragmatic premises leaning towards Gricean, Searlean and Austinean principles of speech act and implicature theory. She successfully handles and explains a bunch of data within this pragmatic domain. Texts therefore, should be appropriately con-textualized beyond the content domain. This means that while rendering any text, transla-

P R E V I E W

6

tors should be ultimately seeking how utterances reflect certain illocutionary forces that satisfy both Gricean relevance and Searlean felicity conditions. Though relatively a recent artistic genre compared to the art and the craft of transla-tion, cartoons are hybridized creative texts of recognized virtuosity and talent, so they have gained significant cultural, literary and political recognition and appreciation to the extent that most daily and weekly newspapers have dedicating a considerably prominent portion for their cartoonists, many of whom have achieved enviable reputation. Both lin-guistically and culturally, these cartoons manifest uniquely interacting features that may constitute a real challenge to translation theory and to those who are active in the field whether practitioners or theoreticians.

Many works have been written in the field of Arabic-English translation in a contrastive mood covering various topics and tropes, AlMouakket (1988), AlSaraireh (1990), Shunnaq (1993), et al. The contrastive nature of all these works primarily stresses that Arabic and English are both linguistically and culturally so remote that the gap is tremendously unbridgeable, Farghal (1991), Farghal and Shakir (1993), AbulKas (1994), et al . Translation from such narrow perspectives tend to be most often deterministic by definition Therfore, this contrastive view tends to delimit the prevalence of equivalence as the most advantageous approach to translation studies although it neglects the interdisciplinary aspects of both texts and contexts. That is why many scholars have totally rejected such a dominant approach, so Schulte & Biguenet (1992:10) admittedly argue:

P R E V I E W

7

Disciplines have had a tendency to separate subject matters that by very nature are intricately connected. The reconstruction of the transla-

tion process reaffirms the interconnectedness, since the problem–solving character of translation forces the translator to include a varie-ty of disciplines and interdisciplines o respond to the specific needs of

a text which make a translation possible.

In fact, translation by definition involves huge losses, but such losses are due to many other factors more important than this presumable ‘linguistic and cultural remoteness’ because Arabic and English are not alien to each other as normally portrayed as if one resided in the Antarctic and the other in the seclusion of the Sahara, cf. El-shiyab (1994), Ayoub (1994), Shunnaq (1996), et al . On the contrary, these two cultures per se have had an enormous amount of common denominators over the past three millennia, starting with the genesis of their basic tribal and pagan origins; passing through the pine-source religion shifts; the bidirectional invasions through different stages of history; translation movement, orientalism movement and ending with their close contact in modern time as a result of British and American hegemony in the Arab world; see Hitti (1937), Brockelmann (1960), Gibb (1962), et al ; let alone the colossal impacts of globalization, informational revolution and the aftermaths of 11th September. More disappointingly, the researcher has found only few works pertaining to translating Arabic cartoons; see Al-Shishani (1999) and Al-Natour (2006). The main focus of these studies through their analysis is directed to the verbal content of those cartoons while nonverbal signs have been significantly ignored, in addition to the fact that the same equivalence approach seems to be their prime concern.

P R E V I E W

8

Though she provides no semiotic analysis, on the other hand, EL-Arousy (2007) looks somewhat aware of the dimensionality of the nonverbal signs, so her objective is merely confined to the verbal humorous mechanism in Egyptian cartoons within a

functional translation approach. However, the dilemma appears much more complicated, bearing in mind that lucidly smooth severance of such complications can be so arduous in accordance with Newmarks (1988: 6) assumption that “everything without exception is translatable; the translator cannot afford the luxury of saying that something cannot be translated”; however Jakobson’s (1959: 234) subtle remark is not less uncontroversial as he goes “Both the practice and the theory of translation abound with intricacies, from time to time attempts are made to sever the Gordian knot by proclaiming the dogma of untranslatability.”

As far as translation studies are concerned, it has been one of the most controversial issues whether translation should be faithful or transparent; according to Dryden (1631-1700), it is the choice between metaphrase and paraphrase respectively, McGuire (1980). The former prioritize fidelity to the SLT while the latter entirely aims at producing a natural and beautiful TLT. Therefore, the French cliché ‘les belles infidèles’ depicts such an analogy between women and translation, in the sense that one goal can be achieved: either beauty or fidelity; thus it has been frequently presumed that traduttore traditore . However, Tytler (1791) was the first pioneer as he tried to set solid principles of translation though he could not solve the riddle of balance between the ‘luster’ of SLT and the ‘idiomacity’ of the TLT. This is the kernel argument of formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence as proposed by Eugene Nida (1964), one of the most acknowledged

P R E V I E W

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/1xsq.html