On The Pragmatic Equivalence Of Fictional Conversation Translation From The Perspective Of The Cooperative Principle

Jane Austen’s Emma has still been enjoying wide popularity all over the world.Most researches at home and abroad pay attention to its literary value; however, onlya few in the translational field, exclusively based on qualitative analysis, can be found.With the help of software tool of SPSS V13.0, the present thesis, exemplified by twoChinese versions of Emma, i.e. Wan Hua’s and Zhang Jinghao’s, explores linguisticand social equivalence in the translation of fictional conversions under the frameworkof Paul Grice’s Cooperative Principle. The research questions are presented asfollows:1. At the level of vocabulary is there any flouting of the four maxims infictional conversations? If there is, can such flouting help achievepragmatically equivalent effects? If there isn’t, can such flouting helpachieve pragmatically equivalent effects?2. At the level of syntax is there any flouting of the four maxims in fictionalconversations? If there is, can such flouting help achieve pragmaticallyequivalent effects? If there isn’t, can such flouting help achievepragmatically equivalent effects?Grice categorizes four maxims of Cooperative Principle: Maxim of quality,which says something that we believe to be true or have enough evidence; maxim ofquantity which refers to the information that we give is just as required, no more noless; maxim of relation which is relevant; maxim of manner which should avoidobscurity of expression and ambiguity, and be brief and orderly. When the flouting ofthe four maxims happens, conversational implicature occurs. The comparisonbetween the source text and its Chinese versions can help check whether the floutingof the Cooperative Principle helps achieve linguistic and social equivalence.The first research question is studied at the level of vocabulary. The totalfrequencies of the violation of the maxim of quality are24(11satires+6metaphors+7hyperboles in the source text,11satires,6metaphors and7hyperboles in Wan’s version, and11satires,3metaphors and7hyperboles in Zhang’s). Both Wan’s andZhang’s keep the same number of satires and hyperboles, which means both achievelinguistic equivalence. Furthermore, target language readers, being familiar with them,can make clear the implied meanings of such writing techniques; therefore, the twoversions bear the same social equivalence to the source text. Wan’s6and Zhang’s3metaphors maintain the original rhetoric features; the other three of Zhang’s, thoughrunning the risk of losing their originally vivid images, have kept their implications,which means they remain socially equivalent. As a metaphor may involve culturaldenotations, it is not easy for a Chinese version to be linguistically equivalent.In terms of the maxim of quantity, hyperboles and understatements are underscrutiny. The two Chinese versions keep one single hyperbole from the source text.Understatements total8in the source text,7in Wan’s and8in Zhang’s. Deliberatelyas the two versions play down the value, target readers can comprehend them.Therefore, Wan’s and Zhang’s achieve both linguistic and social equivalence. There isno violation of the maxim of relation. In terms of the maxim of manner, there is onerepetition in the original, but none in Wan’s and Zhang’s, which means both versionsdo not achieve linguistic equivalence; however, they achieve some degree of socialequivalence if we initiate a probe into the context of the related dialogues. There isonly one contradiction in the source text, Wan’s and Zhang’s. The latter twopurposefully say something, thus keeping its intent paradoxical meaning, andachieving linguistic and social equivalence.The other research question is answered at the syntactic level. Simple sentencesand complex sentences can play a vital importance in light of flouting the fourmaxims. In terms of the maxim of quality, the total number is44(38simple sentences+6complex sentences) in the source text,43(37simple sentences+6complexsentences) in Wan’s and44(38simple sentences+6complex sentences) in Zhang’s,which provides testimony to both versions’ being linguistically and sociallyequivalent to the source text. In terms of the maxim of quantity, the expected numberis35(22simple sentences+13complex sentences) in the source text,35(22simplesentences+13complex sentences) in both Wan’s and Zhang’s, giving proof of the occurrence of linguistic and social equivalence. In terms of the maxim of relation,there are11flouting cases in the source text, both Chinese versions including8simplesentences and3complex sentences. The relevant statistics suggests their linguisticequivalence to the source text. The flouting of the maxim of relation mainly isrepresented by characters’ changing topics so as to avoid some embarrassingsituations, thus helping the two versions’ acquiring social equivalence. In terms of themaxim of manner, there are22(15simple sentences+7complex sentences) in thesource text; Wan’s consists of15simple sentences and7complex sentences, andZhang’s14simple sentences and6complex sentences. The two versions achievelinguistic equivalence in the most part, as they deliberately say things ambiguous orobscure, thus keeping the socially implied meanings in a certain degree.All the results and analyses at the levels of both vocabulary and syntaxdemonstrate both Wan’s and Zhang’s versions achieve the same or similar linguisticand social equivalence; as a result, it is safely concluded that flouting of the fourmaxims can contribute to pragmatic equivalence.To sum up, on one hand, this study is a new exploration into fictionalconversation of different Chinese versions of Emma, including both qualitative andquantitative analyses, which makes the results scientific and convincing. On the other,it is meaningful to give a reference to equivalent translation of literary classics.