Imperative Structures in English

Levenston, E. A.

doi:10.1515/ling.1969.7.50.38

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It was recognized in research carried out in the fields of translation, linguistics and communication, for example by Levenston (1985), Blum-Kulka (1986), Zellermayer (1987, Ben-Ari (1988: 65-68). Once recognized, researchers attempted to explain its nature and usage.…”

Section: Exßlicitation In Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Levenston (1985) suggested, on the basis of his examination of translations from English to Hebrew and vice versa, that English has a greater tolerance than Hebrew for the vague and figurative. Though Levenston does not speak directly of explicitation, his research suggests that it is Hebrew rather than English which prefers the expliciL Zellermayer (1987) also examined translations from English to Hebrew and vice versa but her hypotheses and findings do not correspond with those of Blum-Kulka or Levenston.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explicitation in translations of prose-fiction from English to Hebrew as a function of norms

Weissbrod¹

1992

Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RACHELWEISSBROD AbstractThe underlying assumption of this article is that explicitation in translation is not, äs previous research has suggested, solely a universal tendency or a function of the position of the languages involved in the act of translation on a literacy/orality scale. It is norm-dependent and thus changes with historical circumstances and according to the Position of translated literature within the target-culture.In the present article, translations of prose-fiction from English to Hebrew published during the 1960s and 1970s serve äs a casestudy for the examination of explicitation from the perspective suggested above. These two decades form a dynamic period in the history of literary translation into Hebrew. The different attitudes to explicitation and the changes that took place in them during these years were marked, and they corresponded to general processes of change in translated literature in Hebrew. I have chosen to focus on translations from English because they occupied a central place in translated literature in those years, äs Israeli culture became more and more involved with Western, and especially American culture. L Exßlicitation in translationExplicitation in translation means turning the implicit (in the source-text) into the explicit (in the translation). This may be performed in various ways: by replacing pronouns with proper nouns; by turning metaphors into similes thereby exposing the act of comparison; and, on the syntactical level, by filling in ellipses and adding conjunctions.The tendency to explicitate is very common in translation. It was recognized in research carried out in the fields of translation, linguistics and communication, for example by Levenston (1985), Blum-Kulka (1986), Zellermayer (1987, Ben-Ari (1988: 65-68). Once recognized, researchers attempted to explain its nature and usage.

show abstract

Section: Exßlicitation In Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicitation in translations of prose-fiction from English to Hebrew as a function of norms

Weissbrod¹

1992

Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a final example, Key refers to an article in which Levenston (1969) outlines five types of English imperatives. Levenston (1969: 42) clearly states that her description is based on her intuition about her own usage.…”

Section: Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mary Ritchie Key. Male/Female Language. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1975.

Bodine

1977

Lang. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONCurrent interest in sex as a sociolinguistic variable is the result of the convergence of two trends in social science research -emphasis on the social context of language and emphasis on sex as a social and behavioral variable. Understanding sex-based sociolinguistic variation may shed light on previously unanswered questions regarding conversational interaction, semantics, language acquisition, acculturation, socialization, mechanisms of social control, and maintenance of group solidarity. Therefore the subject of language and sex is attracting researchers from a broad range of academic specializations.In 1975 the first three books on language and sex appeared almost simultaneously. One is a depth discussion of a few selected topics (Lakoff 1975). Another is an edited collection of the work of eleven specialists in many different disciplines (Thorne & Henley 1975). In contrast, Male/Female Linguistic Behavior by Mary Ritchie Key attempts the difficult task of synthesizing the entire embryonic field. The result is a collection of numerous ideas, often interesting, but usually undeveloped and unintegrated. Where Key does develop an idea, she often neglects methodological niceties. In particular, intuitionally based suggestions, claims, hypotheses, and speculations of other scholars appear in Key's retelling as having been 'shown' or 'demonstrated', with no hint to the reader of their empirical base. In what follows I will outline the book, then discuss three general issues underlying Key's approach, and conclude by discussing two major problems with the book. SUMMARYThe book begins with elementary introductions to social dialects and to the social and biological bases of sex differentiation. The bulk of the book is devoted to description and illustration of lack of analogous (a) treatment of women and men in labels, descriptors, titles, names, terms of address, taboo words, the pronominal system, and selectional restrictions and groupings in which female and male may occur; and (b) differential use by men and women of strong language, of standard vs. nonstandard varieties, of alternative languages in bilingual communities, and of nonverbal communication. There is also a chapter on language acquisition, a cross-cultural survey, and a discussion of the semantic implications of the linguistic convention of using only + masculine as gender marker vs. using + masculine and + feminine.Key usefully ranges into areas not covered by a strict interpretation of her title. She provides extensive illustration of cartoons and jokes dealing with sex

show abstract

“…E. A. Levenston ( 1969) classifies English imperative structures from the point of view of Halliday's system-structure grammar. The systems he introduces are five: person, insistence, specification, negation, and impatience.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Questions of Preimperatives

Luelsdorff

1977

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imperative Structures in English

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Explicitation in translations of prose-fiction from English to Hebrew as a function of norms

Explicitation in translations of prose-fiction from English to Hebrew as a function of norms

Mary Ritchie Key. Male/Female Language. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1975.

Questions of Preimperatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About