(Luận văn thạc sĩ) referential equivalence between the english and vietnamese versions of lolita

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
---  ---

PHẠM THỊ HỒNG NHUNG

REFERENTIAL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE
ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE VERSIONS OF
"LOLITA"
(ĐÁNH GIÁ MỨC ĐỘ THAM CHIẾU CỦA HAI BẢN TIẾNG ANH
VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT CỦA TÁC PHẨM “LOLITA”)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201

Hanoi, 2014


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
---  ---

PHẠM THỊ HỒNG NHUNG

REFERENTIAL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE
ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE VERSIONS OF
"LOLITA"

(ĐÁNH GIÁ MỨC ĐỘ THAM CHIẾU CỦA HAI BẢN TIẾNG ANH
VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT CỦA TÁC PHẨM “LOLITA”)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201
Supervisor: Asoc. Prof. Dr. Lê Hùng Tiến

Hanoi, 2014


ACCEPTANCE PAGE

I hereby state that I: PHẠM THỊ HỒNG NHUNG, K20C, being a candidate
for the degree of Master of Arts accept the requirements of the college relating to
the retention and use of master‘s graduation paper deposited in the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in
the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan
or reproduction of the paper.

Hanoi, February 10th, 2014

Phạm Thị Hồng Nhung

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to many people who have
assisted me in the completion of my research.
First and foremost, I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Le Hung Tien for his patient guidance, critical feedback, encouragement, and
constructive supervision throughout my research. I would also like to extend my
sincere thanks to all of my friends who have always encouraged and given me
valuable advice in the process of doing this research.
The support extended to me by members of my family has been
immeasurable. I would like to express my sincere thanks to my father, my mother,
and my brother for their support and encouragement throughout my study.

ii


ABSTRACT
In today‘s world where no nation can ignore the globalization trend, the
demand for easy access to the body of literary works of a country is greater than
ever before. More and more literary works are being translated from English, the
international language of communication into Vietnamese, for various purposes.
This calls for academic studies into the field of literary translation. It is extremely
necessary to evaluate the quality of the translation text with a view to improving
translation in general and Literary Translation in particular.
This study aims at revealing the most basic features of English literary text
and basic concepts of translation theory in general, literary translation in particular.
Then it will test the appropriateness of House‘s model for translation quality
assessment in assessing Vietnamese version of English novel ―Lolita‖ regarding
referential equivalence. Finally, suggestions for further studies in translating
English literary texts into Vietnamese will be proposed.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Acceptance page

i

Acknowledgements

ii

Abstract

iii

Table of contents

iv

List of abbreviations

vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1

1.

Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study

1

2.

Aims and objectives of the study

2

3.

Significance of the study

2

4.

Scope of the study

2

5.

Organisation

3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

4

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

4

1.1.

Definition of translation

4

1.2.

Translation Equivalence

5

1.2.1.

The nature of translation equivalence

5

1.2.2.

Translation equivalence types

6

1.2.3.

Discourse analysis in translation

7

1.3.

Literary translation

10

1.3.1.

Basic features of literary text

10

1.3.2.

Problems of literary translation

11

1.3.3.

Covert and Overt Translation

12

1. 4.

Julianne House‘s translation quality assessment model

14

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF
―LOLITA‖

17

2.1.

17

Brief introduction

iv


2.2.

Analysis of the original text based on J. House‘s model

19

2.3.

Statement of function

24

2.4.

Summary

25

CHAPTER 3: TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF
VIETNAMESE VERSION OF ―LOLITA‖
3.1.

Comparison in referential level of equivalence between the

26
26

source text and the target text based on J. House‘s model
through lexical means
3.2.

Statement of quality

41

PART C: CONCLUSION

42

1.

Recapitulation

42

2.

Concluding remarks

42

3.

Limitations

43

4.

Suggestions for further research

43

5.

Contribution of the research

44

REFERENCES

45

APPENDIX: SUGGESTEST TRANSLATIONS

v

I


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SL:

Source Language

TL:

Target Language

ST:

Source Text

TT:

Translation Text

vi


PART A
INTRODUCTION
1.

Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study
The profound importance of translation cannot be denied all over the

world through the ages. The massive expansion of translation of a wide
diversity of fields such as economics or literature has increased a mutual
exchange of knowledge and culture. In particular, not only do nations depend
on it to bridge what would otherwise an impossible communication gap, but it
also accommodate human access to the wealth of global scientific and
technology information, as well as to the ideas that shape our society.
However, translation has never been an easy task, but truly an art which
requires great efforts and proficiency of translators. Not surprisingly, the
translator's role is, however, by no means a passive and mechanical one, and
has also been compared to that of an artist. A translator must well-understand
both languages, as well as the culture that he is to translate.
When the researcher set out to investigate what had been written on the
topic of translation assessment the researcher could notice that much had been
written about translation theory and practice, but very little had been written
on translation assessment. Owing to the Vietnamese readers‘ increasing
demand for English works of literature, there is a growing tendency for
literary translation without being assessed and edited carefully. This has led to
a hot issue ―translation disaster‖ arising among translators. The translator,
Tran Dinh Hien stated that the essence of the translation is the cultural

exchange between two countries. As a result, in order to be a good translator,
apart from the exceptional ability to use languages, he also needs relevant
experience and deep understanding of two cultures. How one piece of literary
work is translated has an enormous influence on the readers‘ interpretation and
understanding of the country. Therefore, comprehensive assessment of literary

1


work is badly needed. However, there has been, so far, no appropriate official
study on evaluating English-Vietnamese translation in the field of literature.
‗Lolita‘ by Nabakov is one of the most notable literary works that has
excited long-standing controversy over the morality among translators.
Additionally, this piece of work is also reputable for Nabakov‘s writing style.
The Vietnamese version of ―Lolita‖ was translated by an experienced
translator, Duong Tuong; however, not only experts in translation quality
assessment but also Vietnamese readers are doubtful about the quality of this
version.
All the things concerned above have offered the researcher an
opportunity to conduct a study on ‗Referential equivalence between the
English and Vietnamese versions of "Lolita".
2.

Aims and objectives of the study
Regarding the aforementioned research gaps, the present study is

undertaken as an attempt to evaluate the quality of translation text compared
to the original one ―Lolita‖ in terms of referential equivalence.
In short, the principal aims of the study could be summarized into the
research question as follows:

How is the translation quality of Vietnamese version “Lolita”
regarding referential equivalence?
3.

Significance of the study
Once having been completed, the study would serve as one official

academic study on translation evaluation of Vietnamese version ―Lolita‖ that
is eagerly awaited for so long among Vietnamese readers.
In addition to academic significance, the findings from the research
would probably contribute to the process of editing this version later.
4.

Scope of the study
As a matter of fact, there has been different views and models on

translation quality assessment. Due to time constraint, resources, the

2


researcher‘s knowledge and experience, the primary focus will inevitably be
on evaluate the referential equivalence between two versions.
5.

Organisation
The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
PART B: DEVELOPMENT includes the 3 following chapters:
CHAPTER 1 (LITERATURE REVIEW) provides the readers with

theoretical background related to translation and translation equivalence in
general, with a view to understanding the present research. It also highlights
the main issues and controversies around the problem.
CHAPTER 2 (ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF
“LOLITA”) gives the readers the fundamental information about this novel.
In this novel, House‘s model for translation quality assessment will first be
presented and then applied in analyzing the English version of Lolita.
CHAPTER 3 (TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF
VIETNAMESE VERSION OF “LOLITA”) provides the readers with
thorough analysis of translation evaluation of Vietnamese version of ―Lolita‖
in terms of referential equivalence.
PART C: CONCLUSION contains the summary of the main findings
of the study, the brief limitations of the research and some suggestions for
further studies.

3


PART B
DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW
1.4.

Definition of translation
Translation is usually defined as a process of substituting a source

language text by a target language text, where the aim is to preserve the
meaning and content of the original text as accurately as possible. This is
obviously an immensely simplified definition of a process which might seem

relatively simple; however, it is actually a much more complicated process in
reality than expected. Some translation theorists have introduced their
definitions of translation and characterized the nature and aims of translation.
Catford (1974: 20) defines translation as "the replacement of textual
material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another
language (TL)". He describes translation as a unidirectional process, which is
always performed from a given source language to a given target language.
In Catford‘s (ibid.: 21) view, the aim of translation is to find the target
language equivalents.
According to Bell (1991), the goal of translation is "the
transformation of a text originally in one language into an equivalent text in a
different language retaining, as far as possible, the content of the message
and the formal features and functional roles of the original text." In contrast
to Catford, Bell (ibid.: 6) argues that a total equivalence between a source
language text and its

translation is something that can never be fully

achieved.
Newmark (1981: 7) defines translation as "a craft consisting in the
attempt to replace a written message and/or statement in one language by the
same message and/or statement in another language". According to BassnettMcGuire (1980: 2), the aim of translation is that the meaning of the target

4


language text is similar to that of the source language text, and that "the
structures of the SL will be preserved as closely as possible, but not so
closely that the TL structures will be seriously distorted". In other words, the
source language structure must not be imitated to such an extent that the

target language text becomes ungrammatical or sounds otherwise unnatural
or clumsy.
These definitions of translation are fairly congruent with each other,
and various theorists define translation in relatively similar terms. Although a
diversity of perspectives has been articulated within the field of translation
theory, there are some views that translation theorists generally agree on.
Specifically, they all share the same essence of translation which lies in the
preservation of semantic, pragmatic, and textual aspects of meaning across
two different languages.
1.5.

Translation Equivalence

1.2.4.

The nature of translation equivalence
One of the most central concepts in translation theory is the concept

of equivalence. As stated by Catford (1965), ―the central problem of
translation practice is that of finding TL equivalents and the central task of
translation theory is therefore that of defining the nature and conditions of
translation equivalence‖ (p. 21). Therefore, numerous linguistic scholars
recognized the importance of seeking a proper equivalence during translation
process; however, some confusion and vagueness still exists in the very
definition of the concept. Different kinds of categories of equivalence have
also been suggested within the field of translation theory. The complexity
and elusiveness of the concept has resulted in the fact that a universally
valid, comprehensive definition of equivalence does not exist. Nevertheless,
in the study, the researcher will now introduce some views on translation
equivalence and its different types.

5


The definition of equivalence has experienced great changes in the
history of translation theory. Eugene A. Nida‘s (1969) conceptualisation of
dynamic equivalence is perhaps the best known view on translation
equivalence. According to Nida and Taber (1969: 24), dynamic equivalence
has been achieved if the target language readers respond to the same text in
the same way that the source language readers responded to it. In other
words, the translation should always have the same emotional effect on
target language readers as the source text had on source language readers.
This effect can hardly ever be perfectly identical, however, due to different
cultural settings of the SL and TL audiences (ibid.). Another problem is that
sometimes it might be somewhat difficult to determine what exactly the
'effect' of a given text is and who precisely is the intended receiver of the
message (Chesterman 1989: 80).
J.C. Catford‘s textual equivalence is another well-known definition of
translation equivalence. According to Catford (1974: 49), source and target
language words do not usually have precisely the same meaning in the
linguistic sense, but that does not mean that they could not nevertheless
function well enough in the same situation. Thus, Catford (ibid.) argues that
the translation is equivalent with the source text when they are
"interchangeable in a given situation".
However, the linguistic and cultural differences between two different
languages make perfect correspondence a sheer impossibility in practice. As
Bassnett-McGuire (1980: 29) puts it, equivalence in translation should no
longer be understood as a relationship of sameness, since "sameness cannot
even exist between two TL versions of the same text, let alone between SL
and TL version".

1.2.5. Translation equivalence types
Many scholars dedicated themselves to studying TE under qualitative
approach. Among thousands of research works on this, some has become the

6


famous and reliable foundations for the latter studies. To date, there have
been 3 subdivisions under qualitative approach including: function-based,
meaning-based and form-based approach. Eugene A. Nida, Koller and Baker
are three linguistic researchers are credited as the founders of these above
approaches with their major works of the time.
a. Function-based equivalence
Eugene A. Nida (1964) argues that there are two different types of
equivalence, including formal equivalence which, in the second edition, is
referred to as formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence. Formal
correspondence focuses attention on both form and content (as in Bible,
international diplomacy, law and the like) unlike dynamic equivalence
emphasizes the text readability. Formal correspondence consists of a TL item
which represents the closest equivalent of a SL word or phrase. Nida stresses
that there are not always formal equivalents between language pairs.
Dynamic equivalence is a translation principle in which a translator
translates the meaning of the original text; producing the same impact on the
original wording did upon the ST audience.
Nida (1964) believes that the main aim of equivalent effect is to
achieve "the closest natural equivalent to the source language" (p.126). He
stresses that the adaptation of grammar, cultural references and lexicon of the
ST will lead to the translation naturalness while highlighting the preservation
of the text meaning on its style as the root of the equivalent effects. He
argues that formal translators who focus more on forms are more likely to

misinterpret the "intention of the author" and "distort the meaning" (p. 191192).
b. Meaning-based equivalence
Werner Koller (1977) proposes five levels of equivalence, namely
‗denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic and formal equivalence‘.
It is noteworthy that Koller‘s formal equivalence is different from Nida‘s. As

7


cited in Mehrach (1997, p.14) and Munday (2001, p. 47), Koller
distinguishes five types of equivalence as follows:
 'denotative equivalence' refers to the case where the ST and the TT
have the same denotations, that is conveying the same extra
linguistic facts;
 'connotative equivalence' is also referred as 'stylistic equivalence'
and related to the lexical choices between near synonyms;
 ‗text normative' refers to text types, i.e., the description and
analysis of a variety of texts behaving differently;
 'pragmatic equivalence' is also called 'communicative equivalence',
is oriented towards the receptor of the text, as he should receive
the same effect that the original text produces on its readers;
 'formal equivalence' may also be referred to as

'expressive

equivalence', is related to the word-for-word rendition of forms,
aesthetic and stylistic features of the ST.
c. Form-based equivalence
Baker (1992) proposes five levels of equivalence: equivalence at
word level, equivalence above word level, grammatical equivalence, textual

equivalence, pragmatic equivalence. Firstly, equivalence at word level is
taken into consideration. Baker defines the term ―word‖ and notes that word
sometimes have different meanings in different languages, and relates
meaning of words with morpheme. Baker introduces problems at word level
and above word level before suggesting some strategies in dealing with
them.

Secondly, grammatical equivalence refers to the diversity of

grammatical categories across languages. She affirms that grammatical rules
across languages may differ, which lead to some problems in finding a direct
correspondence in the TL. Thirdly, textual equivalence refers to the
equivalence between a SL text and a TL text regarding information and
cohesion. Whether the cohesive relations between TL and SL should be

8


maintained depends on three main factors, that is, the target audience, the
purpose of the translation and the text type. Finally, pragmatic equivalence
refers to implication of the TL text. The duty of a translator is recognizing
the implied meaning of SL text, and then reproducing it in a way that readers
of the TL can comprehend clearly without any misunderstanding culturally.
1.2.6. Discourse analysis in translation
a. Definition
Brown and Yule (1983) define discourse analysis as follows:
“In the study of language, some of the most interesting questions arise
in connection with the way language is used, rather than what its
components are…We were, in effect, asking how it is language-users
interpret what other language-users intend to convey. When we carry

this investigation further and ask how it is that we, as language users,
make sense of what we read in texts, understand what speakers mean,
despite what they say, recognize connected as opposed to jumbled or
incoherent discourse, and successful take part in that complex activity
called conversation, we are undertaking what is known discourse
analysis”. [12, p.iii]
In summary, discourse analysis is the analysis of language in use and
includes in itself the analysis of the text beyond and above the sentence.
Consequently, discourse analysis is fundamental in translation because
translation is interpreted as to comprise discourse analysis (of ST) and
reconstructuring (into TT).
b.

Levels of Discourse analysis in translation

In the light of Newmark (1988), four levels of discourse analysis more or
less consciously in mind in translation process.
 (1) the SL text level, the level of language, where we begin and
which we continually (but not continuously) go back to;

9


 (2) the referential level, the level of objects and events, real or
imaginary, which we progressively have to visualise and build up,
and which is an essential part, first of the comprehension, then of
the reproduction process;
 (3) the cohesive level, which is more general, and grammatical,
which traces the train of thought, the feeling tone (positive or
negative) and the various presuppositions of the SL text. This level

encompasses both comprehension and reproduction: it presents an
overall picture, to which we may have to adjust the language level;
 (4) the level of naturalness, of common language appropriate to
the writer or the speaker in a certain situation.
1.6.

Literary translation

1.3.4.

Basic features of literary text
Literature is the way of using well-chosen words to narrate a story

involving characters in a conflict, or to express an emotion or idea through
artfully arranged images. The purpose of literature is to entertain or enlighten
the reader through the use of imagination.
As a matter of fact, literary language is a part of general linguistics.
Almost all linguistic features used in literary texts are, as a consequence,
taken from general linguistics. However, literary language possesses some
undeniable typical features.
Literary language possesses all the characteristics that assist in
realizing the descriptive goal of literary texts. As Peter Mark (1995: 13)
states, there is ―an emphasis linking verbs, adjective, and adjectival nouns.‖
Literary texts also consist of the linguistic particularities relating to ―major
topics as cohesion, manning patterns, modality, and evaluation, the structure
of narratives, the recording of character speech and thought, clause processes
and participants, and the dynamic of dialogue, presupposition and textual
revision.‖ (Michael Toolan – 1998)

10

Literary texts also carry the metrical and para-metrical features of
language. This is an adaptation of the linguistic form called the prosodic
phonological form. A linguistic form used in literary language is parallelism
in syntax, semantics, and lexis.
With regards to narrative, one of the aspects of narrative form which
exists independently is the macro-structure, or large-scale structure. As far as
I am concerned, it is generally agreed upon that the structure of the stories
cannot adequately be accounted for in terms of their sentence structures
alone. Notions such as plot, scheme, theme, and plan have been used, both in
classical literary scholarship and in structural analysis of myths, folktales and
other simple stories, in order to denote more global narrative structures.
Another point that should be noted about literary language is that it is
closely related to cultural elements. These cultural elements marked out the
patterns and threads in the narrative whereby the overall cultural gap that has
to be bridged and gauged, and some consideration can also be given to the
balance of items to be domesticated and foreignised. Moreover, these
elements provide the readers insights into the author and an understanding of
the undercurrents in the novel. It is, thus, clear that cultural elements are
central to any translation. Nord (1997:11) supports this idea by stating that
―… a translation theory cannot draw on a linguistic theory alone… What it
needs is a theory of culture to explain the specificity of communicative
situations and the relationship between verbalized and non-verbalized
situational elements.‖
1.3.5. Problems of literary translation
In order to create a good piece of translation, a translator has to deal
with many challenges, especially literary translation where a large number of
problems still remain.
Long-standing debates mainly consider finding equivalents not just

for lexis, syntax, or concepts, but also for features such as style, genre,

11


figurative

language,

historical

stylistic

dimensions,

polyvalence,

connotations as well as denotations, cultural items and culture-specific
concepts and values. It is the translators who make a choice whether to retain
stylistic dimension of the original become critical in literary translation.
One of the most significant problems in translating literary texts is the
differences between cultures. It is easily recognized by a translator who uses
a cultural approach that each language contains elements which are derived
from its culture. In addition, every text is anchored in a specific culture, and
conventions of text production and reception vary from culture to culture. In
fact, translation is considered as a form of intercultural communication
which poses the problems not merely at verbal level or linguistic level. The
awareness that one does not seek barely verbal equivalents but also for
cultural equivalents, if there is any, comes in handy in prompting the
translator to decide the strategies he or she has to use. Accordingly,

translation is no longer a matter of finding verbal equivalents but also
interpreting a text encoded in one semiotic system with the assistance of
another. The whole enterprise of finding cultural equivalents raises
awareness of the difference and similarities between cultures. It also brings
into focus the critical question of cultural identity. Apparently, literary
translation exerts great influence on the target culture, and at the same time,
the target culture has never stopped restraining the process of literary
translation. It is held that ―there is always a context in which the translation
takes place, always in a history from which a text emerges and into which a
text is transposed‖. (Lafervere: 1990: 11). As a matter of fact, literary
translation is embedded with the constraints of a certain target cultural
context.
1.3.6. Covert and Overt Translation
According to Juliane House (1997), the essence of translation lies in
the preservation of "meaning" across two languages. There are three aspects

12


to this "meaning": semantic, pragmatic and textual so that translation may be
defined as the replacement of a text in the source language by a semantically
and pragmatically equivalent text in the target language. She concluded that
in translation assessment, the critic have to find two kinds of mismatches
between the two texts. One of these mismatches is overtly erroneous
error and the other one is covertly erroneous error. Based on these factors,
she introduced two kinds of translation: Overt vs. Covert Translations.
In an overt translation, the TT audience is not directly addressed and
there is, therefore, no need at all to attempt to recreate a second original text
since an overt translation must overtly a translation. In overt translation, the
work of the translator is important and visible. It is the translator‘s task to

give target culture members access to the original text and its cultural impact
on source culture members. Also, the translator puts culture members in a
position to observe and judge this text from outside. Thus the major
difficulty in translating overtly is finding linguistic cultural equivalents
particularly along the dimension of Tenor and its characterization of the
author‘s temporal, social and geographical provenance.
Covert translation, on the other hand, means the production of a text
which is functionally equivalent to the ST. In this type of translation, the
translator has to attempt to recreate an equivalent speech event.
Consequently, the function of a covert translation is to reproduce in the target
text the function that the original has in its frame and discourse world. It is
the translator‘s expression task to betray the original and to hide behind the
transformation of the original. Thus, the work of translator is clearly less
visible, if not totally absent.
In short, covert translation is less complex and more deceptive than
overt translation. In evaluating a translation, it is thus essential that the
fundamental differences between overt and covert translation be taken into

13


account. These two types of translation clearly make different demands on
translation criticism.
1.7.

Julianne House’s translation quality assessment model
Before presenting her model, House explains the theoretical basis on

which her model was developed. She (1976) starts by saying that it is the
essence of translation that meaning be preserved across the two languages

involved, and that meaning has three basic aspects: a semantic, a pragmatic
and a textual aspect.
The semantic aspect is the most easily accessible from the three
aspects and has been given preference by evaluators. However, the pragmatic
aspect that is "the particular use of an expression on a specific occasion"
(House, 1981:27) is very important in translation because translation deals
with language in use.
The textual aspect has been frequently neglected though it is a very
important aspect because all the references such as substitutions, anaphora,
ellipses, etc. that makes up the different ways of text constitution account for
the textual meaning that should be preserved in translation.
Thus, according to House, translation would be "the replacement of a
text in the source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent
text in the target language" (House, 1981:29-30). The problem is then to
explain what equivalence means.
According to House, the equivalence sought should be an equivalence
of function that is both source and translation texts must present the same
function and the text's function can only be made explicit through a detailed
analysis of the text itself.
This is the basis for the model, and what makes it different from the
other criteria for establishing equivalence because those criteria relied either
on the writer's intention, an item that is not open to empirical investigation,
or on the reader's responses, which presents problems to be measured.

14


The function of a text would then be "the application (cf. Lyons,
1969:434] or use which the text has in the particular context of a situation"
(House, 1981:37). Thus, each text is an individual text embedded in a unique

situation, and to characterize the text's function it is necessary to refer the
text to the situation. To accomplish this, the notion of situation has to be
broken down into the following specific situational dimensions: dimensions
of language user and dimensions of language use.
Dimension of language user

Dimension of language use

i.

Geographical Origin

i.

Medium (Simple/Complex)

ii.

Social Class

ii.

Participation

iii.

Time

(Simple/Complex)

Time

iii.

Social Role Relationship

iv.

Social Attitude

v.

Province

To be more specific, these terms can be understood as follows:
 Geographical Origin: features indicating the text's producer
geographical origin
 Social Class: features indicating the text's producer position on a
social scale
 Time: a feature which provides clues to a text‘s temporal origin
 In Dimension of language user, three situational dimensions are introduced.
They all refer to the features which mark the provenance of a text producer.
 Medium: may be either simple, i.e. written to be read, or complex,
e.g. written to be spoken as if not written (as in a play), or simply
written to be spoken (as in a draft of a speech or sermon)
 Participation may also simple or complex. Simple refers to a
monologue or dialogue; complex refers to various ways of
―participation elicitation‖ and indirect addressee participation in a
15

monologue manifest linguistically e.g., in the specific use of
pronouns, presence of contact parentheses, etc.
 Social Role Relationship refers to the role relationships that are
divided into symmetrical and asymmetrical ones between
addresser and addressees. The former is characterized by solidarity
and equality between addresser and addresses, whereas the latter is
marked by some kind of an authority relationship between
addresser and addresses.
 Social Attitude describes the degrees of social distance or
proximity resulting in relative formality or informality. Joos‘
(1961) suggests five different styles or degrees of formality:
frozen, formal, consultative, casual, and intimate.
 Province is broadly defined: it refers not only to the text
producer‘s occupational and professional activity but also to the
field or topic of the text in its widest sense of ―area of operation‖
of the language activity, as well as details of the text production as
far as these can be deduced from the text itself.

16


CHAPTER 2
ANALYSIS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF “LOLITA”
2.1.
2.1.1.

Brief introduction
The author
Vladimir Nabokov was born in St. Petersburg into a wealthy, aristocratic

family. His father, Vladimir Dimitrievich Nabokov, was a liberal politician,
lawyer, and journalist. The household was Anglophile – Nabokov spoke Russian
and English.
He is considered as a Russian-born American novelist, critic, and
acknowledged lepidopterist. Nabokov wrote both in Russian and English. His
best-known novel, Lolita (1955), shocked many people but its humor and
literary style were praised by critics.
As a writer Nabokov gained his first literary success with his translations
of some of Heine's songs. By 1955, Nabokov had already published a number of
novels but had yet to create his masterpiece Lolita, which Nabokov began
writing in 1949. It took six years before Nabokov finished Lolita, a literary
bomb. The English writer Graham Greene cited it among the best books of 1955.
Edmund Wilson, Evelyn Waugh, and E.M. Forster did not share his view.
With Lolita Nabokov gained a huge success, although it was banned in Paris in
1956-58 and not published in full in America and the U.K. until 1958.
2.1.2.

The novel
Lolita is one of the most controversial novels of the 20th-century, in

which the rhetoric of the protagonist both captivates and repels. The story deals
with the desire of a middle-aged pedophile Humbert Humbert, the narrator, for a
12-year-old girl. "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins," he starts his story.
Humbert is said to be a metaphor for the writer and his art, and for the old world
– Humbert is an European expatriate – encountering the new, represented by an
American teenage girl, in all its vulgarity. Humbert keeps a prison-diary of his
lifelong fascination with pubescent "nymphets". The first is Annabel Leigh, who

17