4. Method and Material
4.3. Corpus linguistics, contrastive analysis and translation correspondences
35
The method Semantic Mirrors clearly shows that Norwegian tak has three sense groups: one is cover, the second is grip and hold, the third sense group is ceiling and roof. The conclusion is that
Norwegian tak is 3-ways ambiguous with respect to English (Dyvik, 1998: 65).
When the method is applied to seem and appear, three sense groups for seem and three for appear and their degree of overlap are established. A contrastive study of translation pairs is then made to consider any correlation between the syntactic environments, the semantic modal and evidential meanings and the pragmatic functions of the two verbs.
36
seem and appear and how that was reflected in the translations. Evidentiality and modality was determined by the variable type of evidence (4.3.2, see also 2.7.). The final variable was the pragmatic function (4.5.3., see also chapter 3.5.).
The examples in the following sections are from the translation pairs included in the data set for this thesis. When possible, I have included examples with both seem and appear. The relevant parts are in bold.
4.3.1. Translation correspondences and their syntactic form
Correspondences in the form of a verb phrase (lexical verbs) with the same overall syntactic and thematic structure as the original have been classified as congruent correspondences (48) and (49).
(48) She seemed reluctant to admit that much. (SG1) Hun virket uvillig til å innrømme så pass. (SG1T) (She seemed unwilling to admit that much.)
(49) She appeared to be wearing parts of a dead goat on her feet. (ST1) Hun så ut til å ha tullet føttene inn i deler av en død geit. (ST1T)
(She appeared/looked as if to have wrapped her feet in parts of a dead goat.) Translations that changed the overall structure of the original sentence, but kept the semantic or modal meaning, were categorized as non-congruent correspondences. Since this thesis is not primarily concerned with form, but with modal and evidential meaning conveyed by the chosen tokens in the originals, and their translations, some restructured sentences are categorized as non-congruent correspondences because the modality/evidentiality is retained that would probably have been zero correspondences in studies more focused on form. Non-congruent correspondences found in my material are:
Restructurings that make an implicit or explicit experiencer the subject
(50) It seemed to me that whatever else was true, it was absolutely the case that Ty deserved to realize some of his wishes. (JSM1)
Enten det nå var sånn eller slik, syntes jeg så absolutt at Ty fortjente å få noen av ønskene sine oppfylt. (JSM1T)
(Whether it was this way or that way, I absolutely thought that Ty deserved to fulfil some of his wishes.)
Restructurings with Norwegian anticipatory or dummy subject det
(51) Mama's stories about Elek were so vivid he almost seemed to be my brother. (TH1) Mammas historier om ham var så levende at det nesten kjentes som om han var min bror. (TH1T)
(Mama's stories about him were so vivid that it almost felt as if he were my brother.) (52) I had always thought that dogs were engineered on the principle of four-wheel drive
vehicles, with equal propulsion coming from each leg, but the power appears to be concentrated in the back. (PM1)
37
Jeg hadde alltid trodd at hunder var konstruert etter samme prinsipp som firehjuls-drevne kjøretøyer — at hvert ben bidro like mye til fremdriften, men det later til at de er bakbensdrevne. (PM1T)
(…., but it appears that they have rear wheel drive.)
Translations with a modal particle
(53) I could n't think of a response and she did n't seem to expect one. (SG1) Jeg klarte ikke å tenke ut noe svar, og hun ventet det visst heller ikke. (SG1T) (I could not think of a response, and she did not expect it [modal particle] either.) (54) Arthur seemed to be climbing down. (RDA1)
Arthur var nok på vikende front. (RDA1T)
(Arthur was [modal particle] on the receding front.
Translations with a modal adjunct or a prepositional phrase functioning as a modal adjunct
(55) Philip had recently fathered a second son, with his new wife, Cleopatra, with whom he appeared to be giddily infatuated. (JH1)
Filip hadde nettopp avlet en sønn til, med sin nye hustru, Kleopatra, som han åpenbart var svimlende forgapt i. (JH1T)
(Philip had recently fathered another son, with his new wife Cleopatra, with whom he was obviously giddily infatuated.)
(56) They found that for them both the meaning of life seemed to be contained, if mysteriously, in living useful lives. (NG1)
De oppdaget også at for dem begge lå hensikten ved livet i på en eller annen måte å gjøre en innsats. (NG1T)
(They also discovered that for them both the purpose of life was in some way or another to make an effort.)
Translations with a modal auxiliary
(57) "I do n't seem to remember your ever giving Molly much of a chance," said Frederick. (DL1)
"Jeg kan ikke huske at du noensinne har gitt Molly noen særlig sjanse," sa Frederick.
(DL1T)
("I cannot remember that you have ever given Molly any particular chance, said Frederick.")
38 Comparative constructions / hypotheticals
(58) He had clean, good-natured lines in his movements which seemed to say to everyone I 'm here and ai n't complaining about it, so why are you? (GN1)
Bevegelsene hans var rene og blide, det var som om de sa til alle og enhver — her er jeg og klager ikke, så hvorfor gjør du? (GN1T)
(His movements were pure and friendly, it was as if they told everyone – here I am, and [I am] not complaining, so why are you?)
The non-congruent correspondences are indicators of how modal or evidential seem and appear are.
For example, a high number of correspondences with modal meaning suggest that the original expression is modal, rather than evidential in nature.
Omissions, as this thesis will show, is a frequently used translation strategy for seem and appear in some contexts. In my thesis, zero correspondences are omissions, see (59) below, or significant restructuring of clauses with a clear loss of evidential and modal meaning (60):
(59) He seemed to stiffen. (RD1) Han stivnet til. (RD1T) (He stiffened)
(60) Andrew was ascending the hospital front steps when, ahead of him, the main door slammed open and Dr. Overton, the resident, appeared to hurl himself out. (AH1) Andrew gikk opp trappen da hoveddøren gikk opp og dr. Overton kom settende, meget opphisset, med bustet hår. (AH1T)
(…, the main door opened, and Dr. Overton came hurling out, very agitated, with unkept hair.)
The number of zero correspondences may thus be an indicator of how modal or evidential the expression is. For example, a high number of zero correspondences will testify to a low degree of modality in the original expression.
4.3.2. Evidential and epistemic modal meaning
Seem and appear are also categorized with respect to various sense groups as given by the Semantic Mirrors-analysis (5.1.5. and 5.2.5.). This makes it possible to provide a quantitative measure of the extent to which they share semantic meaning, and how often they are semantically distinct.
The other variable that provides insight into how modal or evidential seem and appear are, is 'Type and source of evidence'. Each sentence pair is analysed with respect to this variable in both
languages.
The values for this variable are:
• Direct Attested Visual
• Direct Attested Auditory
• Direct Attested Other Sensory
• Indirect Reported Hearsay (third and second hand)
• Indirect Reported Folklore
39
• Indirect Inferring Result
• Indirect Inferring Reasoning
• No evidence/Personal judgement and belief
• Irretrievable from context.
The frequencies of direct attested evidence and indirect evidence were used as an indicator of how evidential the original expression was. When seem and appear refer to direct and indirect evidence, they are interpreted to have evidential meaning. When the evidence is inferred, they are epistemic and evidential at the same time. With respect to the two types of inferential evidence, the
categorization was a qualitative judgement of whether the epistemic or the evidential component was the strongest. If the inference was based on some observable result, the evidence was categorized as 'Indirect Inferring Result', if the reasoning process was the main source for the inference, the chosen evidence type was 'Indirect Inferring Reasoning'.
If there was no reference to evidence, seem and appear were interpreted to have epistemic modal meaning. (A subsequent manual analysis of the last category showed that there was only one translation pair where appear had no modal or evidential meaning, this example was excluded from any discussions about evidentiality and epistemic modality. See 5.2.3.). This interpretation of the variable 'Type of evidence' as an indicator of modality or evidentiality is in line with the chosen theoretical approach to evidentiality and epistemic modality, which sees them as separate categories, but with overlapping meaning and function in inferences (see section 2.6.4).
4.5.3. Pragmatic functions
Lastly, seem and appear and their Norwegian correspondences were categorized with respect to their pragmatic functions (3.5.). The pragmatic functions were:
• Hedging
• Stance
• Politeness marker
• Undetermined
I subsequently did a manual count to determine if there were any difference in the functions of seem and appear as adaptors, modifiers, boosted modifiers, adjusters or construers of common ground, and I counted manually how the different functions co-occurred with different types of evidence. I also did an analysis of the different correspondences with respect to the different functions. The contrastive analysis offers insight into the functions of the two expressions and show similarities and differences in pragmatic function and effect.
To properly determine the relationship between form, meaning and function, I also counted manually how catenative constructions and constructions with a that-clause correlated with the source and type of evidence to determine whether they were primarily evidential, epistemic or both.
I also counted manually the frequencies with which seem and appear in different syntactic
constructions had different pragmatic functions. The result of this three-way analysis is presented in 5.5.
40