últimas corrientes teóricas en los estudios de traducción - Gredos ...

HASSANE LOUNIS–RELEVANCE THEORY: HOW USEFUL IS IT TO TRANSLATING DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES?
range of contextual effects for the minimum justifiable processing effort” (cited in Blass
1990: 61).
Based on this view, Blakemore investigates how to understand utterances and
established what she considers are the semantics of DCs. She (1987) attempts to provide a
comprehensive relevance-theory-based study of DCs and utterance interpretation. In
general, textual coherence can be explained according to the principle of relevance, she
believes. She argues that “a coherence of a text may derive from the way in which the
relevance of one segment [of a discourse] depends on the interpretation of another” (1992:
135). A message conveyed by an utterance can be relevant in four ways, she adds:
1. It may allow the derivation of a contextual implication (as therefore and
so).
2. It may strengthen an existing assumption (by providing better evidence
to it (as furthermore and after all).
3. It may contradict an existing assumption (as but and however).
4. It may indicate the role of the utterance in the discourse (as anyway,
incidentally, by the way, and finally).
Unlike other studies, in their attempts to classify DCs, relevance theorists start from
determining the different classes of utterance interjections and consequently start the
process of “accommodating” their DCs within.
Based on Wilson’s and Sperber’s work, RT proponents distinguish between two
types connectives or rather two functions these words have: conceptual and procedural. To
clarify, consider the following examples:
a. Conceptual:
b. Procedural:
The teacher did not come today because she is ill
Situation: Alison puts a big piece of cake on Simon’s plate full of cream.
Simon: But I’m on diet!
What can be noticed from the above examples is that conceptual connectives
express the relation between two arguments. Procedural connectives, however, do not.
Blakemore (1987:77) believes their (procedural) “sole function is to guide the interpretation
process by specifying certain properties of context and contextual effects. In a relevancebased
framework […] their use is to be expected”. This type of connectives then are used
in a situation where the speaker believes the hearer might need some extra help or
assistance for his/her idea to be interpreted in the correct way intended. This assistance can
be in the form of making a number of assumptions readily available for the audience.
Blakemore (1987:144) sees conceptual connectives as “elements of linguistic structure
[which act] as concepts”.
391